NEW BOOK V1 Code of Canon Law:
Link to interview given to Newstalk Ireland radio 2nd June 2021 - reaction to New Book V1 of Canon Law
www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-pat-kenny-show/reaction-to-the-changes-in-the-catholic-churchs-penal-code
www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-pat-kenny-show/reaction-to-the-changes-in-the-catholic-churchs-penal-code
Many thanks to Rodolfo Soriano-Núñez for sending me this Spanish translation of article in Breakingnews.ie on my interview with Newstalk Ireland 2nd June 2021 (original English version below)
Activista critica la actualización 'muy decepcionante' del Código de Derecho Canónico de la Iglesia Católica
IRLANDA
02/06/2021 | 11:53 A. M.
VIVIENNE CLARKE
La veterana activista Marie Collins ha expresado su decepción por los cambios en el código penal de la Iglesia Católica anunciados por el Vaticano el martes.
"Es un documento muy decepcionante, sin tolerancia cero, sin informes obligatorios", dijo a Newstalk en el programa de Pat Kenny.
Collins dijo que esperaba que la actitud de la iglesia de que los niños y las mujeres eran "tentadoras" estuviera "muerta y desaparecida", sin embargo, dijo que esa actitud todavía estaba ahí, y agregó que el Vaticano estaba más atrás que cualquier otra parte de la iglesia.
Partes del Código de Derecho Canónico le “saltaron”, una es que el clero podría ser castigado muy severamente si no informan internamente a las autoridades eclesiásticas: “Pero no se mencionó en absoluto que tuvieran que informar a las autoridades civiles, así que nada cambió allí tristemente ", dijo la Sra. Collins.
“El problema con esto, desde mi punto de vista, es que se enlistan sanciones para diversas infracciones y delitos, pero en ninguna parte dice que se aplicarán o deben aplicarse.
“Lo que realmente me afecta es, en lo que respecta al abuso de un menor, dice que un sacerdote puede ser destituido de su cargo, puede ser laicizado, donde el caso lo requiera. Ahora, esa redacción para mí significa que se dejará en manos de los obispos individuales el juicio sobre cómo castigan realmente a un sacerdote, lo que significa que no hay ninguna coherencia o norma en toda la iglesia ", agregó la Sra. Collins.
“Un obispo podría decidir que algo es serio, mientras que otro obispo podría decidir que es una ofensa menor. Al imponer los castigos pueden ser castigados con laicidad, la privación de su cargo o lo que sea. Donde el Código dice ``según el caso lo requiera '' y luego no defines qué es lo que requiere un caso, lo dejas al juicio de los obispos individuales y ahí es donde siempre ha estado, no hay cambios, depende de la buena voluntad del obispo en el área del sacerdote”, dijo la Sra. Collins.
'Calor de la pasión'
Una sección del documento, que la Sra. Collins dijo molesta aquí, fue donde se podría disminuir una pena si la ofensa ocurriera 'en el calor de la pasión': "Eso realmente no tiene lugar en un documento como este en mi opinión", dijo.
Collins dijo que las advertencias "ensucian" el documento: "Si le quitas los titulares, se ve muy bien, parece que la iglesia está avanzando, pero cuando lo lees en detalle, no lo es".
Dijo que muchos sobrevivientes se enojarían con la sección sobre niños, en la que dice “si una persona, un sacerdote, comete una ofensa contra el sexto mandamiento del decálogo con un menor, el sexto mandamiento es 'no cometerás adulterio' y dice que si un sacerdote comete una ofensa contra el sexto mandamiento con un menor, ¿qué tiene que ver el adulterio con el abuso infantil?
"Al decir con un menor, está sugiriendo que el menor es un participante dispuesto o que de alguna manera ha dado su consentimiento, cometer un delito, cometer adulterio bajo el título de adulterio con un menor, eso es simplemente inapropiado y absolutamente no tiene lugar aquí", dijo. dicho.
La Sra. Collins señaló que los obispos de Inglaterra y Gales habían presentado una solicitud formal al Vaticano para no usar este idioma como lo habían usado antes.
“Ayer se les preguntó en una conferencia de prensa en el Vaticano por qué lo usaban, y dijeron que era tradición. Eso sólo muestra dónde estamos todavía con el Vaticano.
“Considerar el abuso contra un niño como una ofensa contra el sexto mandamiento: no cometerás adulterio, es ofensivo para cualquier niño que haya sido abusado, cualquier persona que haya sido abusada cuando era menor, pero todavía está ahí, eso hace yo muy enojado.
'Provocativo'
La Sra. Collins también expresó su preocupación con respecto al uso del trabajo provocativo en otra sección del código.
"¿Provocativo? ¿Quién juzga eso? Todavía muestra la mentalidad, en el caso de algo en contra de una mujer adulta 'bueno, ella podría haber sido una tentación' porque fue muy provocativa, y también piensan de esa manera sobre los niños, nada en la redacción muestra ningún cambio de actitud.
“Todo está enfatizando cómo se puede reducir la pena; incluso dice en una sección que si ha habido un juicio penal, se puede pensar que el castigo civil es suficiente y que tal vez no sea necesario más castigo.
“Los supervivientes a lo largo de las décadas han estado buscando la tolerancia cero y es que cualquier sacerdote o religioso que abusa de un niño ya no sigue siendo sacerdote y hubo una cumbre hace algunos años en Roma con todos los obispos de todo el mundo y la tolerancia cero fue prometido, y no ha aparecido en este.
"No hay ninguna promesa de que alguien será destituido como sacerdote si abusan de los niños", dijo.
Castigos
En opinión de Collins, algunas partes del documento eran buenas, como extender el abuso a las imágenes pornográficas y al cuidado personal, pero no hubo nada en lo que respecta a las sanciones, dijo.
“Todavía no son obligatorios, todavía depende de un individuo decidir si debe imponerlos o no. En algunos casos, las sanciones no tienen que hacerse públicas y si alguien obtiene una remisión de su sanción, eso tampoco tiene que hacerse público ".
La Sra. Collins dijo que no creía que la iglesia hiciera ningún cambio en el documento: “En la Iglesia Católica, la ley canónica es el documento definitivo al que se debe acudir: es la regla, es un absoluto, no se modificará. con alrededor de los bordes, esto se establece ahora durante muchos años.
“Como sobreviviente de abuso cuando era niña, me molesta que todavía me agrupen bajo el concepto de 'no cometerás adulterio'. El hecho de que los sacerdotes puedan ser destituidos de sus cargos, pero no necesariamente tiene que ser así.
“Que el juicio de si un caso es grave o no se deja en manos del obispo local y el hecho de que a lo largo del texto se habla constantemente de remitir la infracción incluso de reducir la pena si el religioso o el sacerdote se arrepiente.
"Soy cristiana, soy católica y estoy muy feliz de ver a alguien arrepentido por su ofensa, pero eso no significa que no merecen ser castigados por ello", dijo Collins,
"Y, sin embargo, todavía está aquí en esto, parece que no han aprendido nada, han aprendido lo suficiente para poder agregar más infracciones y expandir lo que está cubierto, pero en lo que respecta a las penas, se han retirado de al borde de hacer los cambios que eran tan necesarios, y es muy decepcionante y las cosas de actitud que todavía están ahí, como si alguien es provocador, sigue viendo a la mujer o al niño como una tentación para los religiosos ”, agregó.
Activista critica la actualización 'muy decepcionante' del Código de Derecho Canónico de la Iglesia Católica
IRLANDA
02/06/2021 | 11:53 A. M.
VIVIENNE CLARKE
La veterana activista Marie Collins ha expresado su decepción por los cambios en el código penal de la Iglesia Católica anunciados por el Vaticano el martes.
"Es un documento muy decepcionante, sin tolerancia cero, sin informes obligatorios", dijo a Newstalk en el programa de Pat Kenny.
Collins dijo que esperaba que la actitud de la iglesia de que los niños y las mujeres eran "tentadoras" estuviera "muerta y desaparecida", sin embargo, dijo que esa actitud todavía estaba ahí, y agregó que el Vaticano estaba más atrás que cualquier otra parte de la iglesia.
Partes del Código de Derecho Canónico le “saltaron”, una es que el clero podría ser castigado muy severamente si no informan internamente a las autoridades eclesiásticas: “Pero no se mencionó en absoluto que tuvieran que informar a las autoridades civiles, así que nada cambió allí tristemente ", dijo la Sra. Collins.
“El problema con esto, desde mi punto de vista, es que se enlistan sanciones para diversas infracciones y delitos, pero en ninguna parte dice que se aplicarán o deben aplicarse.
“Lo que realmente me afecta es, en lo que respecta al abuso de un menor, dice que un sacerdote puede ser destituido de su cargo, puede ser laicizado, donde el caso lo requiera. Ahora, esa redacción para mí significa que se dejará en manos de los obispos individuales el juicio sobre cómo castigan realmente a un sacerdote, lo que significa que no hay ninguna coherencia o norma en toda la iglesia ", agregó la Sra. Collins.
“Un obispo podría decidir que algo es serio, mientras que otro obispo podría decidir que es una ofensa menor. Al imponer los castigos pueden ser castigados con laicidad, la privación de su cargo o lo que sea. Donde el Código dice ``según el caso lo requiera '' y luego no defines qué es lo que requiere un caso, lo dejas al juicio de los obispos individuales y ahí es donde siempre ha estado, no hay cambios, depende de la buena voluntad del obispo en el área del sacerdote”, dijo la Sra. Collins.
'Calor de la pasión'
Una sección del documento, que la Sra. Collins dijo molesta aquí, fue donde se podría disminuir una pena si la ofensa ocurriera 'en el calor de la pasión': "Eso realmente no tiene lugar en un documento como este en mi opinión", dijo.
Collins dijo que las advertencias "ensucian" el documento: "Si le quitas los titulares, se ve muy bien, parece que la iglesia está avanzando, pero cuando lo lees en detalle, no lo es".
Dijo que muchos sobrevivientes se enojarían con la sección sobre niños, en la que dice “si una persona, un sacerdote, comete una ofensa contra el sexto mandamiento del decálogo con un menor, el sexto mandamiento es 'no cometerás adulterio' y dice que si un sacerdote comete una ofensa contra el sexto mandamiento con un menor, ¿qué tiene que ver el adulterio con el abuso infantil?
"Al decir con un menor, está sugiriendo que el menor es un participante dispuesto o que de alguna manera ha dado su consentimiento, cometer un delito, cometer adulterio bajo el título de adulterio con un menor, eso es simplemente inapropiado y absolutamente no tiene lugar aquí", dijo. dicho.
La Sra. Collins señaló que los obispos de Inglaterra y Gales habían presentado una solicitud formal al Vaticano para no usar este idioma como lo habían usado antes.
“Ayer se les preguntó en una conferencia de prensa en el Vaticano por qué lo usaban, y dijeron que era tradición. Eso sólo muestra dónde estamos todavía con el Vaticano.
“Considerar el abuso contra un niño como una ofensa contra el sexto mandamiento: no cometerás adulterio, es ofensivo para cualquier niño que haya sido abusado, cualquier persona que haya sido abusada cuando era menor, pero todavía está ahí, eso hace yo muy enojado.
'Provocativo'
La Sra. Collins también expresó su preocupación con respecto al uso del trabajo provocativo en otra sección del código.
"¿Provocativo? ¿Quién juzga eso? Todavía muestra la mentalidad, en el caso de algo en contra de una mujer adulta 'bueno, ella podría haber sido una tentación' porque fue muy provocativa, y también piensan de esa manera sobre los niños, nada en la redacción muestra ningún cambio de actitud.
“Todo está enfatizando cómo se puede reducir la pena; incluso dice en una sección que si ha habido un juicio penal, se puede pensar que el castigo civil es suficiente y que tal vez no sea necesario más castigo.
“Los supervivientes a lo largo de las décadas han estado buscando la tolerancia cero y es que cualquier sacerdote o religioso que abusa de un niño ya no sigue siendo sacerdote y hubo una cumbre hace algunos años en Roma con todos los obispos de todo el mundo y la tolerancia cero fue prometido, y no ha aparecido en este.
"No hay ninguna promesa de que alguien será destituido como sacerdote si abusan de los niños", dijo.
Castigos
En opinión de Collins, algunas partes del documento eran buenas, como extender el abuso a las imágenes pornográficas y al cuidado personal, pero no hubo nada en lo que respecta a las sanciones, dijo.
“Todavía no son obligatorios, todavía depende de un individuo decidir si debe imponerlos o no. En algunos casos, las sanciones no tienen que hacerse públicas y si alguien obtiene una remisión de su sanción, eso tampoco tiene que hacerse público ".
La Sra. Collins dijo que no creía que la iglesia hiciera ningún cambio en el documento: “En la Iglesia Católica, la ley canónica es el documento definitivo al que se debe acudir: es la regla, es un absoluto, no se modificará. con alrededor de los bordes, esto se establece ahora durante muchos años.
“Como sobreviviente de abuso cuando era niña, me molesta que todavía me agrupen bajo el concepto de 'no cometerás adulterio'. El hecho de que los sacerdotes puedan ser destituidos de sus cargos, pero no necesariamente tiene que ser así.
“Que el juicio de si un caso es grave o no se deja en manos del obispo local y el hecho de que a lo largo del texto se habla constantemente de remitir la infracción incluso de reducir la pena si el religioso o el sacerdote se arrepiente.
"Soy cristiana, soy católica y estoy muy feliz de ver a alguien arrepentido por su ofensa, pero eso no significa que no merecen ser castigados por ello", dijo Collins,
"Y, sin embargo, todavía está aquí en esto, parece que no han aprendido nada, han aprendido lo suficiente para poder agregar más infracciones y expandir lo que está cubierto, pero en lo que respecta a las penas, se han retirado de al borde de hacer los cambios que eran tan necesarios, y es muy decepcionante y las cosas de actitud que todavía están ahí, como si alguien es provocador, sigue viendo a la mujer o al niño como una tentación para los religiosos ”, agregó.
Report carried in Breakingnews.ie 2nd June 2021
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/campaigner-criticises-very-disappointing-update-to-catholic-church-penal-code-1136111.html?utm_campaign=article&utm_source=email&utm_medium=web?utm_source=email
Campaigner criticises 'very disappointing' update to Catholic Church penal code
02/06/2021 | 11:53 AMVIVIENNE CLARKE
Veteran campaigner Marie Collins has expressed her disappointment at the changes to the Catholic Church’s penal code announced by the Vatican on Tuesday.
“It's a very disappointing document, no zero tolerance, no mandatory reporting,” she told Newstalk’ Pat Kenny show.
Ms Collins said she had been hoping the church’s attitude that children and women were “temptresses” would be “dead and gone”, however she said that attitude was still there, adding the Vatican was further behind than any other part of the church.
Parts of the penal code “jumped out” at her, one being that clergy could be punished very severely if they did not report internally to the church authorities: “But there was no mention whatsoever of them having to report to civil authorities so nothing has changed there sadly", Ms Collins said.
“The problem with it from my view is that there are lists of penalties for various infringements and offences, but nowhere does it say they will be applied, or they must be applied.
“The one that really sticks with me is, as far as where abusing a child is concerned, is it says that a priest can be removed from office, he can be laicised, where the case calls for it. Now that wording for me means that it will be left to a judgement call to the individual bishops, how they actually punish a priest, which means you don't have any consistency or standard across the church," Ms Collins added.
“One bishop could decide something is serious while another bishop could decide it's a minor offence. By putting in they can be punished by being laicised, deprived of office, or whatever, where you put in 'where the case calls for it' and then don't define where a case calls for it, you're leaving it up to the judgement of the individual bishops and that's where it's always been, there's no change, it depends on the goodwill of the bishop in the area of the priest,” Ms Collins said.
'Heat of passion'One section of the document, which Ms Collins said upset here was where a penalty could be diminished if the offence occurred 'in the heat of passion' - “That really has no place in a document like this in my view,” she said.
ADVERTISEMENTMs Collins said caveats “litter” the document: “If you take the headlines out of it, it looks very good, it looks as if the church is moving on, but when you read it in detail, it's not.”
She said many survivors would be angered by the section regarding children, in which it says “if a person, a priest, commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the decalogue with a minor - the sixth commandment is 'thou shalt not commit adultery' and it's saying that if a priest commits an offence against the sixth commandment with a minor, what has committing adultery got to do with child abuse?
"By saying with a minor it's suggesting that the minor is a willing participant or has somehow given consent - to commit an offence, to commit adultery under the heading of adultery with a minor - that's just inappropriate and absolutely has no place here," she said.
Ms Collins pointed out that the bishops in England and Wales had put in a formal request to the Vatican not to use this language as they had used it before.
“They were asked at a press conference in the Vatican yesterday why they used it, and they said it was tradition. That just shows where we're still at with the Vatican.
ADVERTISEMENT“To consider abuse against a child as being an offence against the sixth commandment - thou shalt not commit adultery, is offensive to any child who has been abused, any person who has been abused as a minor, yet it’s still in there, that makes me very angry.
'Provocative'Ms Collins also raised concerns regarding the use of the work provocative in another section of the code.
“Provocative? Who judges that? It shows the mindset still, in the case of something against an adult female 'well she could have been a temptation' because she was so provocative, and they also think that way about children, nothing in the wording there shows any change of attitude.
“It's all emphasising how you can reduce the penalty - it even says in one section that if there's been a criminal trial it may be thought that the civil punishment is enough and no further punishment might be necessary.
“Survivors over the decades have been looking for zero tolerance and that is that any priest or religious that abuses a child no longer remains a priest and there was a summit some years ago in Rome with all the bishops from around the world and zero tolerance was promised, and it has not shown up in this.
ADVERTISEMENT“There's no promise that someone will be removed as a priest if they abuse children,” she said.
PenaltiesIn Ms Collins' view, some parts of the document were good, such as extending the abuse to grooming and pornographic images, but there was nothing as far as penalties are concerned, she said.
“They're still not mandatory, they're still up to an individual to decide whether they should impose them or not. In some cases penalties don't have to be made public and that if someone gets a remission of their penalty that doesn't have to be made public either.”
Ms Collins said she did not think the church would make any changes to the document: “In the Catholic Church, Canon law is the ultimate ‘go to’ document - it is the rule, it is an absolute, it won't be tinkered with around the edges, this is set down now for many years to come.
“As a survivor of abuse as a child, it bothers me that I'm still being lumped in under the ‘shalt not commit adultery’. The fact that priests can be removed from office, but don't necessarily have to be.
"That the judgement of whether a case is serious or not is left down to the local bishop and the fact that right the way through it constantly talks about remitting the offence even reducing the penalty if the religious or the priest is remorseful.
“I'm a Christian, I'm a Catholic, and I'm very happy to see someone remorseful about their offence, but it doesn't mean they don't deserve to be punished for it," Ms Collins said,
"And yet that is still here in this, it seems they haven't learned anything - they've learned enough to be able to add more offences and to expand what is covered, but as far as penalties are concerned they have pulled back from the brink of making the changes that were so necessary, and it's very disappointing and the attitudinal things that are still there, like if someone is provocative - it's still looking at the female or the child as tempting the religious,” she added.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/campaigner-criticises-very-disappointing-update-to-catholic-church-penal-code-1136111.html?utm_campaign=article&utm_source=email&utm_medium=web?utm_source=email
Campaigner criticises 'very disappointing' update to Catholic Church penal code
02/06/2021 | 11:53 AMVIVIENNE CLARKE
Veteran campaigner Marie Collins has expressed her disappointment at the changes to the Catholic Church’s penal code announced by the Vatican on Tuesday.
“It's a very disappointing document, no zero tolerance, no mandatory reporting,” she told Newstalk’ Pat Kenny show.
Ms Collins said she had been hoping the church’s attitude that children and women were “temptresses” would be “dead and gone”, however she said that attitude was still there, adding the Vatican was further behind than any other part of the church.
Parts of the penal code “jumped out” at her, one being that clergy could be punished very severely if they did not report internally to the church authorities: “But there was no mention whatsoever of them having to report to civil authorities so nothing has changed there sadly", Ms Collins said.
“The problem with it from my view is that there are lists of penalties for various infringements and offences, but nowhere does it say they will be applied, or they must be applied.
“The one that really sticks with me is, as far as where abusing a child is concerned, is it says that a priest can be removed from office, he can be laicised, where the case calls for it. Now that wording for me means that it will be left to a judgement call to the individual bishops, how they actually punish a priest, which means you don't have any consistency or standard across the church," Ms Collins added.
“One bishop could decide something is serious while another bishop could decide it's a minor offence. By putting in they can be punished by being laicised, deprived of office, or whatever, where you put in 'where the case calls for it' and then don't define where a case calls for it, you're leaving it up to the judgement of the individual bishops and that's where it's always been, there's no change, it depends on the goodwill of the bishop in the area of the priest,” Ms Collins said.
'Heat of passion'One section of the document, which Ms Collins said upset here was where a penalty could be diminished if the offence occurred 'in the heat of passion' - “That really has no place in a document like this in my view,” she said.
ADVERTISEMENTMs Collins said caveats “litter” the document: “If you take the headlines out of it, it looks very good, it looks as if the church is moving on, but when you read it in detail, it's not.”
She said many survivors would be angered by the section regarding children, in which it says “if a person, a priest, commits an offence against the sixth commandment of the decalogue with a minor - the sixth commandment is 'thou shalt not commit adultery' and it's saying that if a priest commits an offence against the sixth commandment with a minor, what has committing adultery got to do with child abuse?
"By saying with a minor it's suggesting that the minor is a willing participant or has somehow given consent - to commit an offence, to commit adultery under the heading of adultery with a minor - that's just inappropriate and absolutely has no place here," she said.
Ms Collins pointed out that the bishops in England and Wales had put in a formal request to the Vatican not to use this language as they had used it before.
“They were asked at a press conference in the Vatican yesterday why they used it, and they said it was tradition. That just shows where we're still at with the Vatican.
ADVERTISEMENT“To consider abuse against a child as being an offence against the sixth commandment - thou shalt not commit adultery, is offensive to any child who has been abused, any person who has been abused as a minor, yet it’s still in there, that makes me very angry.
'Provocative'Ms Collins also raised concerns regarding the use of the work provocative in another section of the code.
“Provocative? Who judges that? It shows the mindset still, in the case of something against an adult female 'well she could have been a temptation' because she was so provocative, and they also think that way about children, nothing in the wording there shows any change of attitude.
“It's all emphasising how you can reduce the penalty - it even says in one section that if there's been a criminal trial it may be thought that the civil punishment is enough and no further punishment might be necessary.
“Survivors over the decades have been looking for zero tolerance and that is that any priest or religious that abuses a child no longer remains a priest and there was a summit some years ago in Rome with all the bishops from around the world and zero tolerance was promised, and it has not shown up in this.
ADVERTISEMENT“There's no promise that someone will be removed as a priest if they abuse children,” she said.
PenaltiesIn Ms Collins' view, some parts of the document were good, such as extending the abuse to grooming and pornographic images, but there was nothing as far as penalties are concerned, she said.
“They're still not mandatory, they're still up to an individual to decide whether they should impose them or not. In some cases penalties don't have to be made public and that if someone gets a remission of their penalty that doesn't have to be made public either.”
Ms Collins said she did not think the church would make any changes to the document: “In the Catholic Church, Canon law is the ultimate ‘go to’ document - it is the rule, it is an absolute, it won't be tinkered with around the edges, this is set down now for many years to come.
“As a survivor of abuse as a child, it bothers me that I'm still being lumped in under the ‘shalt not commit adultery’. The fact that priests can be removed from office, but don't necessarily have to be.
"That the judgement of whether a case is serious or not is left down to the local bishop and the fact that right the way through it constantly talks about remitting the offence even reducing the penalty if the religious or the priest is remorseful.
“I'm a Christian, I'm a Catholic, and I'm very happy to see someone remorseful about their offence, but it doesn't mean they don't deserve to be punished for it," Ms Collins said,
"And yet that is still here in this, it seems they haven't learned anything - they've learned enough to be able to add more offences and to expand what is covered, but as far as penalties are concerned they have pulled back from the brink of making the changes that were so necessary, and it's very disappointing and the attitudinal things that are still there, like if someone is provocative - it's still looking at the female or the child as tempting the religious,” she added.
(This submission was sent directly to the organisers of the meeting on 28th January 2019 and receipt acknowledged)
The Protection of Minors meeting 21-24th February 2019
Submission
By Marie Collins: Survivor of sexual abuse by a priest as a child - Former member Commission for Protection on Minors 2014-2017 Patron of the Marie Collins Foundation UK
Pope Francis in his letter to the people of God on 20th August 2018 said:
I am conscious of the effort and work being carried out in various parts of the world to come up with the necessary means to ensure the safety and protection of the integrity of children and of vulnerable adults, as well as implementing zero tolerance and ways of making all those who perpetrate or cover up these crimes accountable. We have delayed in applying these actions and sanctions that are so necessary, yet I am confident that they will help to guarantee a greater culture of care in the present and future.
“We have delayed in applying these actions and sanctions” The Holy Fathers own words.
It is time this delay ended and these “actions and sanctions” are implemented.
I ask that the following action points be considered for inclusion in this meeting for discussion and a commitment reached to implement them. This in order to move forward efficient and effective means by which minors can be better protected in the Catholic Church globally without further delay.
1. Agree on a clear definition of what constitutes sexual abuse of a minor.
At this date no clear definition of what constitutes sexual abuse of a minor has been put in place by the Catholic Church to guide leaders in their handling of abuse. There is a vague Canon Law which speaks of “delicts against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue” this is not a clear definition.
An example of a clear definition can be found in the local Irish Church Safeguarding Guidance:
“Sexual abuse occurs when others use and exploit children sexually for their own gratification or gain or the gratification of others. Sexual abuse may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example rape or oral sex) or non-penetrative acts such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing and touching outside the clothing. It may include non-contact activities, such as involving children in the production of sexual abuse images, forcing children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways or grooming a child in preparation for abuse (including via e-technology). Sexual abuse is not solely perpetrated by adult males. Women can commit acts of sexual abuse as can other children.”
At the moment the vagueness of the Canon law in regard to abuse often leads to canon law trials unable to bring in a guilty verdict in cases where most people would see clearly sexual abuse has occurred. Having to bring in instead findings such as “imprudent behaviour. It also leads to confusion for some leaders in their understanding of abuse.
2 Agree on a clear definition of the term “zero tolerance”
Pope Francis has promised there will be zero tolerance across the Catholic Church for anyone who would perpetrate sexual abuse of a minor. The meaning of “zero tolerance” is taken by the laity to mean that any member of the clergy found to be guilty of abusing a minor will be removed from the clerical state. However those church leaders who give it any attention argue about what level of abuse is acceptable before zero tolerance is applied while others ignore it.
1&2
Summary: Address the vagueness and ambiguity in these two areas by considering the updating of Canon Law. Ensuring it reflects the full definition of what constitutes sexual abuse of a minor and also incorporate zero tolerance into its code.
Note: My view on the necessity for this has been informed through speaking with bishops from many countries (when taking part in the new bishops training sessions in Rome). It has been clear from their comments that there are huge variations in their understanding of these terms.
3. Review Canon law on the abuse of vulnerable adults separating it from the abuse of minors.
The sexual exploitation of persons who are over 18 should not be confused with abuse of minors. Vulnerability may be due to lack of mental faculties as per the current canon law. However it can more often be due to an imbalance of power between the victim and perpetrator, some adults can be vulnerable at certain times in their life while not permanently vulnerable.
A completely separate processes for dealing with the issue of minors and that of vulnerable adults is necessary. There should be no confusion between the two forms of abuse. Methods to deal with cases involving vulnerable adults need to be developed independently of those currently in place to deal with the abuse of minors.
4. Universal safeguarding measures across the Catholic Church need to be agreed and put in place
At the moment there is no consistency across the global church as to how abuse of a minor is handled. It is often dependent on the particular local bishop and his attitude or willingness to act.
In 2016 the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, international experts, drew up a template on which it was intended local bishop’s conferences would base their safeguarding policies. Incorporating these international best practice measures was to bring a consistency to safeguarding globally.
This document is attached and is also available on the Commission for the Protection of Minors website http://www.protectionofminors.va/content/tuteladeiminori/en/resources_section/pcpm-guidelines-template_page.html
It would be a positive step forward if participants at the meeting were provided with a copy in their own language and were asked to commit to implementing these measures in their area of episcopal authority.
5. The requirements set in place by the Congregations for the Doctrine of Faith for a local safeguarding policy to receive approval should also be circulate to the participants and published.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declined to share this information with the Commission for the Protection of Minors when it was drawing up its own template 2016 (4 above). There is no good reason for the lack of transparency in regard to this most important aspect of safeguarding.
4&5
Summary: Every episcopal conferences worldwide should have in place strong, consistent, internationally recognised best practice safeguard policies. All children no matter on what continent they live are entitled to the same level of safety. While cultural beliefs may differ the welfare of the child must always be paramount.
Note:
It was recently revealed by the Vatican that only 50% of episcopal conferences had safeguarding policies which reached the approved standard of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is now eight years on since the then Promotor of Justice at the CDF, Msgr. Scicluna, called on all conferences to submit their documents to the dicastery. The time is well past for any further foot dragging.
6. It should be clearly stated to the participants at the meeting the process by which a negligent bishop or other church leader will be brought to justice within the institution
It would be a positive move toward better accountability if Pope Francis made a clear statement at this meeting outlining what is the accountability process being used by the Church to hold bishops accountable. Who is investigating? Who are the judges? What are the penalties being imposed?
All church leaders’ worldwide need to be very clear on the sanctions which will be applied if they cover up for perpetrators of abuse or in any way fail to protect minors in their area. This procedure should also be published as the secrecy surrounding it increases the perception that there is no process in place.
7. A commitment should also be announced to make any guilty verdicts in regard to members of church leadership public and this should include and such past findings.
It would be a deterrent to any current leaders, who might hold negative views on safeguarding, if those who leaders who have already a guilty finding against them were made known. This would include what was their offence and what was their penalty.
As well as knowing that any future guilty finding would similarly be made public.
6&7
Summary: Publish to participants and public what is the accountability procedure in place for church leaders failing to protect minors. Make known the names and findings against any church leader guilty under these procedures.
Note: On a personal note the Holy Father discussed accountability with me at his meeting with survivors on 26th August 2018 in Dublin. He insisted there is a process and it is being implemented. As there is complete confusion both within the institution and in the public arena around what exactly is this process this meeting of global representatives of episcopal conferences would be an excellent opportunity for it to be clearly explained and made public.
If what I have submitted were to actually happen at this meeting and all the presidents of the episcopal conferences agreed and committed themselves to implementation of true zero tolerance and universal safeguarding policy it would be a step forward indeed.
The main aim of this meeting is to educate the participants in all aspects of the sexual abuse of a minor. It is very important that these men go back to their countries not only knowing what should be done but having made a commitment to implement all policies immediately.
Thank you for considering this submission Marie Collins – January 2019
The Protection of Minors meeting 21-24th February 2019
Submission
By Marie Collins: Survivor of sexual abuse by a priest as a child - Former member Commission for Protection on Minors 2014-2017 Patron of the Marie Collins Foundation UK
Pope Francis in his letter to the people of God on 20th August 2018 said:
I am conscious of the effort and work being carried out in various parts of the world to come up with the necessary means to ensure the safety and protection of the integrity of children and of vulnerable adults, as well as implementing zero tolerance and ways of making all those who perpetrate or cover up these crimes accountable. We have delayed in applying these actions and sanctions that are so necessary, yet I am confident that they will help to guarantee a greater culture of care in the present and future.
“We have delayed in applying these actions and sanctions” The Holy Fathers own words.
It is time this delay ended and these “actions and sanctions” are implemented.
I ask that the following action points be considered for inclusion in this meeting for discussion and a commitment reached to implement them. This in order to move forward efficient and effective means by which minors can be better protected in the Catholic Church globally without further delay.
1. Agree on a clear definition of what constitutes sexual abuse of a minor.
At this date no clear definition of what constitutes sexual abuse of a minor has been put in place by the Catholic Church to guide leaders in their handling of abuse. There is a vague Canon Law which speaks of “delicts against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue” this is not a clear definition.
An example of a clear definition can be found in the local Irish Church Safeguarding Guidance:
“Sexual abuse occurs when others use and exploit children sexually for their own gratification or gain or the gratification of others. Sexual abuse may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example rape or oral sex) or non-penetrative acts such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing and touching outside the clothing. It may include non-contact activities, such as involving children in the production of sexual abuse images, forcing children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways or grooming a child in preparation for abuse (including via e-technology). Sexual abuse is not solely perpetrated by adult males. Women can commit acts of sexual abuse as can other children.”
At the moment the vagueness of the Canon law in regard to abuse often leads to canon law trials unable to bring in a guilty verdict in cases where most people would see clearly sexual abuse has occurred. Having to bring in instead findings such as “imprudent behaviour. It also leads to confusion for some leaders in their understanding of abuse.
2 Agree on a clear definition of the term “zero tolerance”
Pope Francis has promised there will be zero tolerance across the Catholic Church for anyone who would perpetrate sexual abuse of a minor. The meaning of “zero tolerance” is taken by the laity to mean that any member of the clergy found to be guilty of abusing a minor will be removed from the clerical state. However those church leaders who give it any attention argue about what level of abuse is acceptable before zero tolerance is applied while others ignore it.
1&2
Summary: Address the vagueness and ambiguity in these two areas by considering the updating of Canon Law. Ensuring it reflects the full definition of what constitutes sexual abuse of a minor and also incorporate zero tolerance into its code.
Note: My view on the necessity for this has been informed through speaking with bishops from many countries (when taking part in the new bishops training sessions in Rome). It has been clear from their comments that there are huge variations in their understanding of these terms.
3. Review Canon law on the abuse of vulnerable adults separating it from the abuse of minors.
The sexual exploitation of persons who are over 18 should not be confused with abuse of minors. Vulnerability may be due to lack of mental faculties as per the current canon law. However it can more often be due to an imbalance of power between the victim and perpetrator, some adults can be vulnerable at certain times in their life while not permanently vulnerable.
A completely separate processes for dealing with the issue of minors and that of vulnerable adults is necessary. There should be no confusion between the two forms of abuse. Methods to deal with cases involving vulnerable adults need to be developed independently of those currently in place to deal with the abuse of minors.
4. Universal safeguarding measures across the Catholic Church need to be agreed and put in place
At the moment there is no consistency across the global church as to how abuse of a minor is handled. It is often dependent on the particular local bishop and his attitude or willingness to act.
In 2016 the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, international experts, drew up a template on which it was intended local bishop’s conferences would base their safeguarding policies. Incorporating these international best practice measures was to bring a consistency to safeguarding globally.
This document is attached and is also available on the Commission for the Protection of Minors website http://www.protectionofminors.va/content/tuteladeiminori/en/resources_section/pcpm-guidelines-template_page.html
It would be a positive step forward if participants at the meeting were provided with a copy in their own language and were asked to commit to implementing these measures in their area of episcopal authority.
5. The requirements set in place by the Congregations for the Doctrine of Faith for a local safeguarding policy to receive approval should also be circulate to the participants and published.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declined to share this information with the Commission for the Protection of Minors when it was drawing up its own template 2016 (4 above). There is no good reason for the lack of transparency in regard to this most important aspect of safeguarding.
4&5
Summary: Every episcopal conferences worldwide should have in place strong, consistent, internationally recognised best practice safeguard policies. All children no matter on what continent they live are entitled to the same level of safety. While cultural beliefs may differ the welfare of the child must always be paramount.
Note:
It was recently revealed by the Vatican that only 50% of episcopal conferences had safeguarding policies which reached the approved standard of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is now eight years on since the then Promotor of Justice at the CDF, Msgr. Scicluna, called on all conferences to submit their documents to the dicastery. The time is well past for any further foot dragging.
6. It should be clearly stated to the participants at the meeting the process by which a negligent bishop or other church leader will be brought to justice within the institution
It would be a positive move toward better accountability if Pope Francis made a clear statement at this meeting outlining what is the accountability process being used by the Church to hold bishops accountable. Who is investigating? Who are the judges? What are the penalties being imposed?
All church leaders’ worldwide need to be very clear on the sanctions which will be applied if they cover up for perpetrators of abuse or in any way fail to protect minors in their area. This procedure should also be published as the secrecy surrounding it increases the perception that there is no process in place.
7. A commitment should also be announced to make any guilty verdicts in regard to members of church leadership public and this should include and such past findings.
It would be a deterrent to any current leaders, who might hold negative views on safeguarding, if those who leaders who have already a guilty finding against them were made known. This would include what was their offence and what was their penalty.
As well as knowing that any future guilty finding would similarly be made public.
6&7
Summary: Publish to participants and public what is the accountability procedure in place for church leaders failing to protect minors. Make known the names and findings against any church leader guilty under these procedures.
Note: On a personal note the Holy Father discussed accountability with me at his meeting with survivors on 26th August 2018 in Dublin. He insisted there is a process and it is being implemented. As there is complete confusion both within the institution and in the public arena around what exactly is this process this meeting of global representatives of episcopal conferences would be an excellent opportunity for it to be clearly explained and made public.
If what I have submitted were to actually happen at this meeting and all the presidents of the episcopal conferences agreed and committed themselves to implementation of true zero tolerance and universal safeguarding policy it would be a step forward indeed.
The main aim of this meeting is to educate the participants in all aspects of the sexual abuse of a minor. It is very important that these men go back to their countries not only knowing what should be done but having made a commitment to implement all policies immediately.
Thank you for considering this submission Marie Collins – January 2019
Reunión de Protección de Menores del 21 al 24 de febrero de 2019
Ponencia presentada por
Marie Collins:
Sobreviviente de abuso sexual por parte de un sacerdote cuando era niña.
Integrante de la Comisión de Protección de Menores 2014-2017
Patrona de la Fundación Marie Collins, Reino Unido
El papa Francisco, en su Carta al pueblo de Dios del 20 de agosto de 2018, dijo:
Soy consciente del esfuerzo y del trabajo que se realiza en distintas partes del mundo para garantizar y generar las mediaciones necesarias que den seguridad y protejan la integridad de niños y de adultos en estado de vulnerabilidad, así como de la implementación de la “tolerancia cero” y de los modos de rendir cuentas por parte de todos aquellos que realicen o encubran estos delitos. Nos hemos demorado en aplicar estas acciones y sanciones tan necesarias, pero confío en que ayudarán a garantizar una mayor cultura del cuidado en el presente y en el futuro.
“Nos hemos demorado en aplicar estas acciones y sanciones”. Las propias palabras de los santos padres.
Es hora de que termine este retraso y se implementen estas “acciones y sanciones”.
Solicito que se consideren los siguientes puntos de acción para que sean incluidos en esta reunión, para su discusión y para que se logre un compromiso para implementarlos. Esto con el fin de avanzar en medios eficientes y efectivos, que permitan que los menores puedan estar mejor protegidos en la Iglesia Católica a nivel mundial sin más demora.
1. Acordar una definición clara de lo que constituye abuso sexual de un menor.
Hasta ahora, la Iglesia Católica carece de una definición clara de lo que constituye el abuso sexual de un menor, que sirva para guiar a sus líderes en la manera de manejar el abuso. Existe vagas disposiciones en el Código de Derecho Canónico, que habla de “delitos contra el sexto mandamiento del Decálogo”, que no es una definición clara.
Se puede encontrar un ejemplo de una definición clara en la Guía para la salvaguarda publicada por la iglesia local en Irlanda:
El abuso sexual ocurre cuando otros usan y explotan sexualmente a menores para su propia gratificación o ganancia o para la gratificación de otros. El abuso sexual puede implicar contacto físico, incluido el asalto por penetración (por ejemplo, la violación o el sexo oral) o actos no penetrantes, como la masturbación, los besos, el frotamiento y el contacto con la ropa. Puede incluir actividades sin contacto, como involucrar a niños en la producción de imágenes de abuso sexual, obligar a los niños a comportarse de manera sexual inadecuada o preparar a un niño para prepararse para el abuso (incluso por medio de la tecnología electrónica). El abuso sexual no es perpetrado únicamente por hombres adultos. Las mujeres pueden cometer actos de abuso sexual al igual que otros menores.
En este momento, la vaguedad del Código de Derecho Canónico con respecto al abuso, a menudo lleva a que los juicios canónicos no puedan emitir un veredicto de culpabilidad en los casos en que la mayoría de las personas verían claramente que ha ocurrido abuso sexual. Por ello, debe hablar, en lugar de ello, de hallazgos tales como "comportamiento imprudente”. Ello también hace que algunos líderes se confundan cuando tratan de comprender el abuso.
2 Acordar una definición clara del término “tolerancia cero”
El papa Francisco ha prometido que habrá tolerancia cero en toda la Iglesia Católica para cualquiera que perpetre el abuso sexual de un menor. El significado de “tolerancia cero” es tomado por los laicos para significar que cualquier miembro del clero declarado culpable de abusar de un menor será retirado del estado clerical. Sin embargo, los líderes de la iglesia que prestan atención al problema del abuso, no han alcanzado un acuerdo acerca de qué grado de abuso es aceptable antes de que se aplique la tolerancia cero, mientras que otros lo ignoran.
1 y 2
Resumen: abordar la vaguedad y la ambigüedad en estas dos conceptos al considerar la actualización del Código de Derecho Canónico. Asegurarse de que refleja la definición completa de lo que constituye el abuso sexual de un menor y también incorpora la noción de tolerancia cero.
Nota: Mi opinión sobre la necesidad de esto ha sido informada a través de hablar con obispos de muchos países (al participar en las nuevas sesiones de capacitación de obispos en Roma). De sus comentarios, se desprende claramente que existen grandes variaciones en su comprensión de estos conceptos.
3. Revisar el Código de Derecho Canónico en material de abuso de adultos vulnerables, de modo que se le separe del abuso de menores.
La explotación sexual de personas mayores de 18 años no debe confundirse con el abuso de menores. La vulnerabilidad puede deberse a la falta de facultades mentales según la ley canónica actual. Sin embargo, con mayor frecuencia puede deberse a un desequilibrio de poder entre la víctima y el perpetrador, algunos adultos pueden ser vulnerables en ciertos momentos de su vida, aunque no sean permanentemente vulnerables.
Es necesario un proceso completamente separado para tratar el problema de los menores y el de los adultos vulnerables. No debe haber confusión entre las dos formas de abuso. Los métodos para lidiar con los casos de adultos vulnerables deben desarrollarse independientemente de los que existen actualmente para lidiar con el abuso de menores.
4. Se debe lograr un acuerdo en materia de medidas universales de salvaguardia en toda la Iglesia católica y deben ponerse en práctica.
En este momento no hay coherencia en la iglesia a escala global sobre cómo se debe abordar el abuso de un menor. A menudo depende del obispo local particular y de su actitud o disposición para actuar.
En 2016, los expertos internacionales de la Comisión Pontificia para la Protección de Menores, elaboraron una plantilla que se pretendía fuera la base para que las conferencias nacionales de obispos desarrollaran sus políticas de salvaguardia. La incorporación de estas medidas de mejores prácticas internacionales buscaba lograr un grado de coherencia para la protección a escala global.
Este documento se adjunta y también está disponible en el sitio web de la Comisión para la Protección de Menores http://www.protectionofminors.va/content/tuteladeiminori/en/resources_section/pcpm-guidelines-template_page.html.
Sería un paso positivo si los participantes en la reunión recibieran una copia en su propio idioma y se les pidiera que se comprometieran a aplicar estas medidas en su ámbito de autoridad episcopal.
5. Los requisitos establecidos por la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe para que una política local de salvaguarda también sea aprobada deben distribuirse a los participantes y publicarse.
La Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe se negó a compartir esta información con la Comisión para la Protección de Menores cuando estaba elaborando su propia plantilla en 2016 (punto 4, arriba). No hay una buena razón para la falta de transparencia con respecto a este aspecto, el más importante de la salvaguardia.
4 y 5
Resumen: Todas las conferencias episcopales del mundo deben contar con políticas de salvaguardia que sigan las mejores prácticas, sólidas, coherentes y reconocidas internacionalmente. Todos los menores, sin importar en qué continente vivan, tienen derecho al mismo grado de seguridad. Si bien las creencias culturales pueden diferir, el bienestar del menor siempre debe ser primordial.
Nota:
Recientemente, el Vaticano reveló que solo el 50 por ciento de las conferencias episcopales tenían políticas de salvaguardia que alcanzaron el estándar aprobado de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe. Han pasado ocho años desde que el entonces Promotor de Justicia en el CDF, Mons. Scicluna, pidió a todas las conferencias que presentaran sus documentos al dicasterio. Ya no se pueden tolerar mayores retrasos en este asunto.
6. Se debe indicar claramente a los participantes en la reunión el proceso por el cual un obispo negligente u otro líder de la iglesia será llevado ante la justicia dentro de la institución
Sería un paso positivo hacia una mejor rendición de cuentas si el papa Francisco hiciera una declaración clara en esta reunión, describiendo cuál es el proceso de rendición de cuentas que está utilizando la Iglesia para responsabilizar a los obispos. ¿Quién está investigando? ¿Quiénes son los jueces? ¿Cuáles son las sanciones que se imponen?
Todos los líderes de la iglesia en todo el mundo deben ser muy claros sobre las sanciones que se aplicarán si encubren a perpetradores de abusos o si, de alguna manera, no protegen a los menores en su ámbito de responsabilidad. Este procedimiento también debe publicarse, ya que el secreto que lo rodea aumenta la percepción de que no hay un proceso claramente establecido.
7. También se debe anunciar un compromiso para hacer público cualquier veredicto de culpabilidad con respecto a los líderes de la iglesia y esto debe incluir los hallazgos anteriores.
Podría ser muy útil, como una medida de disuasión dirigida a los actuales líderes de la iglesia que tienen una percepción negativa de la salvaguardia de los menores, si se publicara quienes son los líderes que ya han sido señalados como culpables. Esto incluiría tanto las ofensas cometidas como los castigos impuestos. También sería útil que supieran que cualquier hallazgo futuro de culpabilidad se haría público.
6 y 7
Resumen: Que se difunda tanto a los participantes como al público cuál es el procedimiento de responsabilidad establecido para los líderes de la iglesia que no protegen a los menores. Dar a conocer los nombres y hallazgos contra cualquier líder de la iglesia culpable según estos procedimientos.
Nota: En una nota personal, el papa Francisco discutió el tema de la responsabilidad conmigo en su reunión con los sobrevivientes del 26 de agosto de 2018 en Dublín. Insistió en que hay un proceso y se está implementando. Dado que existe una confusión total tanto dentro de la institución como en el ámbito público sobre cuál es exactamente este proceso, esta reunión de representantes mundiales de conferencias episcopales sería una excelente oportunidad para que se explique y se publique con claridad.
Si lo que he presentado fuera a suceder realmente en esta reunión y todos los presidentes de las conferencias episcopales estuvieran de acuerdo y se comprometieran a implementar la verdadera tolerancia cero y la política de salvaguarda universal, sería realmente un paso adelante.
El objetivo principal de esta reunión es educar a los participantes en todos los aspectos del abuso sexual de un menor. Es muy importante que estos hombres regresen a sus países sabiendo lo que se debe hacer y que se comprometan a implementar todas las políticas de inmediato.
Gracias por considerar este envío
Marie Collins - enero de 2019
Original en http://www.mariecollins.net/comment.html
(Traducción de Rodolfo Soriano-Núñez, @rsnunez)
Ponencia presentada por
Marie Collins:
Sobreviviente de abuso sexual por parte de un sacerdote cuando era niña.
Integrante de la Comisión de Protección de Menores 2014-2017
Patrona de la Fundación Marie Collins, Reino Unido
El papa Francisco, en su Carta al pueblo de Dios del 20 de agosto de 2018, dijo:
Soy consciente del esfuerzo y del trabajo que se realiza en distintas partes del mundo para garantizar y generar las mediaciones necesarias que den seguridad y protejan la integridad de niños y de adultos en estado de vulnerabilidad, así como de la implementación de la “tolerancia cero” y de los modos de rendir cuentas por parte de todos aquellos que realicen o encubran estos delitos. Nos hemos demorado en aplicar estas acciones y sanciones tan necesarias, pero confío en que ayudarán a garantizar una mayor cultura del cuidado en el presente y en el futuro.
“Nos hemos demorado en aplicar estas acciones y sanciones”. Las propias palabras de los santos padres.
Es hora de que termine este retraso y se implementen estas “acciones y sanciones”.
Solicito que se consideren los siguientes puntos de acción para que sean incluidos en esta reunión, para su discusión y para que se logre un compromiso para implementarlos. Esto con el fin de avanzar en medios eficientes y efectivos, que permitan que los menores puedan estar mejor protegidos en la Iglesia Católica a nivel mundial sin más demora.
1. Acordar una definición clara de lo que constituye abuso sexual de un menor.
Hasta ahora, la Iglesia Católica carece de una definición clara de lo que constituye el abuso sexual de un menor, que sirva para guiar a sus líderes en la manera de manejar el abuso. Existe vagas disposiciones en el Código de Derecho Canónico, que habla de “delitos contra el sexto mandamiento del Decálogo”, que no es una definición clara.
Se puede encontrar un ejemplo de una definición clara en la Guía para la salvaguarda publicada por la iglesia local en Irlanda:
El abuso sexual ocurre cuando otros usan y explotan sexualmente a menores para su propia gratificación o ganancia o para la gratificación de otros. El abuso sexual puede implicar contacto físico, incluido el asalto por penetración (por ejemplo, la violación o el sexo oral) o actos no penetrantes, como la masturbación, los besos, el frotamiento y el contacto con la ropa. Puede incluir actividades sin contacto, como involucrar a niños en la producción de imágenes de abuso sexual, obligar a los niños a comportarse de manera sexual inadecuada o preparar a un niño para prepararse para el abuso (incluso por medio de la tecnología electrónica). El abuso sexual no es perpetrado únicamente por hombres adultos. Las mujeres pueden cometer actos de abuso sexual al igual que otros menores.
En este momento, la vaguedad del Código de Derecho Canónico con respecto al abuso, a menudo lleva a que los juicios canónicos no puedan emitir un veredicto de culpabilidad en los casos en que la mayoría de las personas verían claramente que ha ocurrido abuso sexual. Por ello, debe hablar, en lugar de ello, de hallazgos tales como "comportamiento imprudente”. Ello también hace que algunos líderes se confundan cuando tratan de comprender el abuso.
2 Acordar una definición clara del término “tolerancia cero”
El papa Francisco ha prometido que habrá tolerancia cero en toda la Iglesia Católica para cualquiera que perpetre el abuso sexual de un menor. El significado de “tolerancia cero” es tomado por los laicos para significar que cualquier miembro del clero declarado culpable de abusar de un menor será retirado del estado clerical. Sin embargo, los líderes de la iglesia que prestan atención al problema del abuso, no han alcanzado un acuerdo acerca de qué grado de abuso es aceptable antes de que se aplique la tolerancia cero, mientras que otros lo ignoran.
1 y 2
Resumen: abordar la vaguedad y la ambigüedad en estas dos conceptos al considerar la actualización del Código de Derecho Canónico. Asegurarse de que refleja la definición completa de lo que constituye el abuso sexual de un menor y también incorpora la noción de tolerancia cero.
Nota: Mi opinión sobre la necesidad de esto ha sido informada a través de hablar con obispos de muchos países (al participar en las nuevas sesiones de capacitación de obispos en Roma). De sus comentarios, se desprende claramente que existen grandes variaciones en su comprensión de estos conceptos.
3. Revisar el Código de Derecho Canónico en material de abuso de adultos vulnerables, de modo que se le separe del abuso de menores.
La explotación sexual de personas mayores de 18 años no debe confundirse con el abuso de menores. La vulnerabilidad puede deberse a la falta de facultades mentales según la ley canónica actual. Sin embargo, con mayor frecuencia puede deberse a un desequilibrio de poder entre la víctima y el perpetrador, algunos adultos pueden ser vulnerables en ciertos momentos de su vida, aunque no sean permanentemente vulnerables.
Es necesario un proceso completamente separado para tratar el problema de los menores y el de los adultos vulnerables. No debe haber confusión entre las dos formas de abuso. Los métodos para lidiar con los casos de adultos vulnerables deben desarrollarse independientemente de los que existen actualmente para lidiar con el abuso de menores.
4. Se debe lograr un acuerdo en materia de medidas universales de salvaguardia en toda la Iglesia católica y deben ponerse en práctica.
En este momento no hay coherencia en la iglesia a escala global sobre cómo se debe abordar el abuso de un menor. A menudo depende del obispo local particular y de su actitud o disposición para actuar.
En 2016, los expertos internacionales de la Comisión Pontificia para la Protección de Menores, elaboraron una plantilla que se pretendía fuera la base para que las conferencias nacionales de obispos desarrollaran sus políticas de salvaguardia. La incorporación de estas medidas de mejores prácticas internacionales buscaba lograr un grado de coherencia para la protección a escala global.
Este documento se adjunta y también está disponible en el sitio web de la Comisión para la Protección de Menores http://www.protectionofminors.va/content/tuteladeiminori/en/resources_section/pcpm-guidelines-template_page.html.
Sería un paso positivo si los participantes en la reunión recibieran una copia en su propio idioma y se les pidiera que se comprometieran a aplicar estas medidas en su ámbito de autoridad episcopal.
5. Los requisitos establecidos por la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe para que una política local de salvaguarda también sea aprobada deben distribuirse a los participantes y publicarse.
La Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe se negó a compartir esta información con la Comisión para la Protección de Menores cuando estaba elaborando su propia plantilla en 2016 (punto 4, arriba). No hay una buena razón para la falta de transparencia con respecto a este aspecto, el más importante de la salvaguardia.
4 y 5
Resumen: Todas las conferencias episcopales del mundo deben contar con políticas de salvaguardia que sigan las mejores prácticas, sólidas, coherentes y reconocidas internacionalmente. Todos los menores, sin importar en qué continente vivan, tienen derecho al mismo grado de seguridad. Si bien las creencias culturales pueden diferir, el bienestar del menor siempre debe ser primordial.
Nota:
Recientemente, el Vaticano reveló que solo el 50 por ciento de las conferencias episcopales tenían políticas de salvaguardia que alcanzaron el estándar aprobado de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe. Han pasado ocho años desde que el entonces Promotor de Justicia en el CDF, Mons. Scicluna, pidió a todas las conferencias que presentaran sus documentos al dicasterio. Ya no se pueden tolerar mayores retrasos en este asunto.
6. Se debe indicar claramente a los participantes en la reunión el proceso por el cual un obispo negligente u otro líder de la iglesia será llevado ante la justicia dentro de la institución
Sería un paso positivo hacia una mejor rendición de cuentas si el papa Francisco hiciera una declaración clara en esta reunión, describiendo cuál es el proceso de rendición de cuentas que está utilizando la Iglesia para responsabilizar a los obispos. ¿Quién está investigando? ¿Quiénes son los jueces? ¿Cuáles son las sanciones que se imponen?
Todos los líderes de la iglesia en todo el mundo deben ser muy claros sobre las sanciones que se aplicarán si encubren a perpetradores de abusos o si, de alguna manera, no protegen a los menores en su ámbito de responsabilidad. Este procedimiento también debe publicarse, ya que el secreto que lo rodea aumenta la percepción de que no hay un proceso claramente establecido.
7. También se debe anunciar un compromiso para hacer público cualquier veredicto de culpabilidad con respecto a los líderes de la iglesia y esto debe incluir los hallazgos anteriores.
Podría ser muy útil, como una medida de disuasión dirigida a los actuales líderes de la iglesia que tienen una percepción negativa de la salvaguardia de los menores, si se publicara quienes son los líderes que ya han sido señalados como culpables. Esto incluiría tanto las ofensas cometidas como los castigos impuestos. También sería útil que supieran que cualquier hallazgo futuro de culpabilidad se haría público.
6 y 7
Resumen: Que se difunda tanto a los participantes como al público cuál es el procedimiento de responsabilidad establecido para los líderes de la iglesia que no protegen a los menores. Dar a conocer los nombres y hallazgos contra cualquier líder de la iglesia culpable según estos procedimientos.
Nota: En una nota personal, el papa Francisco discutió el tema de la responsabilidad conmigo en su reunión con los sobrevivientes del 26 de agosto de 2018 en Dublín. Insistió en que hay un proceso y se está implementando. Dado que existe una confusión total tanto dentro de la institución como en el ámbito público sobre cuál es exactamente este proceso, esta reunión de representantes mundiales de conferencias episcopales sería una excelente oportunidad para que se explique y se publique con claridad.
Si lo que he presentado fuera a suceder realmente en esta reunión y todos los presidentes de las conferencias episcopales estuvieran de acuerdo y se comprometieran a implementar la verdadera tolerancia cero y la política de salvaguarda universal, sería realmente un paso adelante.
El objetivo principal de esta reunión es educar a los participantes en todos los aspectos del abuso sexual de un menor. Es muy importante que estos hombres regresen a sus países sabiendo lo que se debe hacer y que se comprometan a implementar todas las políticas de inmediato.
Gracias por considerar este envío
Marie Collins - enero de 2019
Original en http://www.mariecollins.net/comment.html
(Traducción de Rodolfo Soriano-Núñez, @rsnunez)
Accountability of Church leaders 13th November 2018
The USA bishops had apparently intended to bring in a strong policy to hold their bishops accountable in regard to the abuse of minors. The Vatican has stepped in to prevent this happening.
After this can anyone still believe that those in the Vatican see the accountability of church leadership as a priority? This latest objection by the Vatican Congregation for Bishops to the implementation of strong accountability measures in the USA mirrors the reaction, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the PCPM recommended accountability tribunal in 2015.
The accountability measure recommended by the PCPM included a change in Canon Law which would cede power to discipline bishops from the Pope to the CDF. The Pope approved this as he announce the tribunal would go ahead as recommended. As we know it never happened as the CDF found Canon Law problems and insisted it was not necessary anyway as enough provisions were already there.
In August in Dublin Pope Francis insisted to me that a new accountability process, in line with his moto proprio ‘As a Loving Mother’ was being implemented and bishops were being held accountable by him. This new process he told me is not consistent across all bishops but has different standards according the culture of the bishop. He later dismissed the concerns I had expressed about this as a “fixation” on accountability.
Behind the Vatican objections is their absolute conviction that Canon Law is more important than any other consideration. Having an inability to accept that if any law prevents proper child protection and discipline of negligent leaders then it has to change. Christ did not write Canon Law men did and men can change it. All that is needed is the will to do so.
The current situation is untenable. Ad hock investigations taking place in some cases and different sanctions or none at all being determined by the “culture” of the bishop. As we saw at the recent Synod there are many bishops who cannot agree what constitutes abuse or even deny it is happening in their “culture”.
It is up to the Pope and his Vatican departments to cease pandering to these attitudes and drop their own fixation with Canon Law. They have to make it clear that every church leader must accept what constitutes child abuse and then enforce universal, strong best practice child protection policies including consistent sanctions for any bishop or other church leader failing to protect the vulnerable.
In February The Pope should present the leaders of the world’s bishops’ conferences with three documents:
All these documents to be made public.
Every representative at the meeting should be requested to sign and accept that their region will abide by these documents. If any refuse then this fact and their reasons for doing so should be made public. No more obsession with secrecy.
In the future all findings of guilt in regard to any church leader and the sanction being applied must be made public. There has to be an end to the fear of scandal and the culture of unexplained “resignations”.
If none of this happens then it is up to the Catholic faithful to raise their voices and refuse to accept the maneuverings of these men in their clerical bubble
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USA bishops had apparently intended to bring in a strong policy to hold their bishops accountable in regard to the abuse of minors. The Vatican has stepped in to prevent this happening.
After this can anyone still believe that those in the Vatican see the accountability of church leadership as a priority? This latest objection by the Vatican Congregation for Bishops to the implementation of strong accountability measures in the USA mirrors the reaction, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the PCPM recommended accountability tribunal in 2015.
The accountability measure recommended by the PCPM included a change in Canon Law which would cede power to discipline bishops from the Pope to the CDF. The Pope approved this as he announce the tribunal would go ahead as recommended. As we know it never happened as the CDF found Canon Law problems and insisted it was not necessary anyway as enough provisions were already there.
In August in Dublin Pope Francis insisted to me that a new accountability process, in line with his moto proprio ‘As a Loving Mother’ was being implemented and bishops were being held accountable by him. This new process he told me is not consistent across all bishops but has different standards according the culture of the bishop. He later dismissed the concerns I had expressed about this as a “fixation” on accountability.
Behind the Vatican objections is their absolute conviction that Canon Law is more important than any other consideration. Having an inability to accept that if any law prevents proper child protection and discipline of negligent leaders then it has to change. Christ did not write Canon Law men did and men can change it. All that is needed is the will to do so.
The current situation is untenable. Ad hock investigations taking place in some cases and different sanctions or none at all being determined by the “culture” of the bishop. As we saw at the recent Synod there are many bishops who cannot agree what constitutes abuse or even deny it is happening in their “culture”.
It is up to the Pope and his Vatican departments to cease pandering to these attitudes and drop their own fixation with Canon Law. They have to make it clear that every church leader must accept what constitutes child abuse and then enforce universal, strong best practice child protection policies including consistent sanctions for any bishop or other church leader failing to protect the vulnerable.
In February The Pope should present the leaders of the world’s bishops’ conferences with three documents:
- A paper setting out what constitutes abuse of a minor - in clear and unambiguous terms.
- A comprehensive, best practice, safeguarding policy (including care of victims)
- An accountability policy setting out clearly the sanctions which will be applied to any
All these documents to be made public.
Every representative at the meeting should be requested to sign and accept that their region will abide by these documents. If any refuse then this fact and their reasons for doing so should be made public. No more obsession with secrecy.
In the future all findings of guilt in regard to any church leader and the sanction being applied must be made public. There has to be an end to the fear of scandal and the culture of unexplained “resignations”.
If none of this happens then it is up to the Catholic faithful to raise their voices and refuse to accept the maneuverings of these men in their clerical bubble
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28th August 2018
What questions do the Church need to answer if they wish to keep children and vulnerable safe from harm and
improve justice for victims/survivors? These would be mine:
1.
Why are the strongest possible safeguarding policies, with the strength of canon law behind them, not being implemented in every diocese and congregation around the world?
The USA is the only country to have a policy which is normative but every child is equally precious, where he or she lives should not decide whether they will be safe or left at risk of harm.
2.
Why are there no robust transparent structures in place to hold accountable those in leadership who protect a predator?
These structures should hold all fully accountable with strong sanctions for the guilty – dismissal from their post, removal of their titles and privileges and if necessary laicization.
3.
How can the Church on the one hand claim to be on the side of the victims/survivors while at the same time fighting against the removal of statutes of limitation in various countries. If removed or dropped more accused could be criminally prosecuted and if guilty the victims/survivors receive justice? The actions are contrary to the words - why?
4.
Why is real zero tolerance not in place globally to ensure any priest who sexually abuses a child is removed from the church immediately. If there is no canon law provision in existence to do this then why not bring in a new law?
5.
Why is the Pontifical Secret used in cases of abusing priests’ canon law trials, this restricts victims/survivors legal rights to information, files etc. The Pontifical Secret was not intended to be used in his way. A year ago the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors recommended its removal from these cases but it is still in place. Why?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Resignation of Chilean Bishops 21st May 2018
I am delighted for the abuse survivors in Chile that they have been rewarded for the courage and perseverance they have shown over many years in the teeth of the most vicious and reprehensible treatment by their Catholic Church leaders. There is no denying the offer of resignation from all the active bishops in Chile is an unprecedented event. No doubt the Chile church will now undergo reform in personnel and practice. All of this is very welcome.
I read yesterday a suggestion that myself and others were guilty of cynicism because we expressed the view that this was not enough. Why would I not just rejoice at the sight of bishops resigning and a local church being overhauled and leave it at that? The reason is that Chile is not unique. What has gone on in Chile is no different than what has happened in other local churches around the world, America, Australia and my own country Ireland being the most well-known examples. But we know these are not alone, it has happened in many other countries, it is happening now and will continue to happen into the future if real structural and attitudinal change is not embraced by the Catholic Church.
The letter from the Pope to the Chile bishops leaked to the press shows that there was “grave negligence”, reports of abuse were ignored, investigations (when they took place) superficial and minimisation of crimes to mere “moral lapses” the guilty being moved into new positions with free access to children. We know from the recent words of Cardinal Errazuriz he did not take action against the prolific abuser Fr. Karadima because he was a charismatic priest who “brought young men into the church”.
While abusing their own power and facilitating further crimes against young people these men then felt justified in efforts to destroy the reputation and lives of survivors who fought to expose their toxic behaviour. In case we forget how comfortable these church men, holding the highest offices, felt in using devious methods to silence a survivor we only need to read the e mail correspondence between Cardinal Errazuria and Cardinal Ezzati published in 2015
http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/2015/09/09/los-correos-secretos-entre-ezzati-y-errazuriz-y-el-rol-clave-de-enrique-correa-en-las-operaciones-politicas-de-la-iglesia/
Translation: http://www.mariecollins.net/chile.html (scroll down to second item)
It is clear Cardinal Errazuriz successfully prevented the Chilean survivor Juan Carlos Cruz from speaking at the Anglopone conference in Rome 2014 and intervened in 2015 to prevent him from being considered for membership of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors when the Cardinal learned I had put his name forward.
So what is to be the punishment of these church leaders, bishops and cardinals, who facilitated abusers and tried to destroy victims? In the case of the bishops it seems they are to be allowed to resign and walk away. In the case of the cardinals so far we do not know. Cardinal Erazzuriz is still a member of the Council of Cardinals (the C9) the most senior advisers to the Pope but most likely he will be allowed in time to quietly retire. Is this enough? In my view it is not.
The Vatican likes this way of dealing with men such as this. It means their reputations are not sullied by the exposure of their individual wrongdoing, they can claim never to have been found guilty of anything, they save face and it moves things along quickly, the sooner to be forgotten. They will retain their titles and no doubt in many case also their privileges. Does this send a dire message to those church leaders at this moment protecting abusers or destroying victims – a message to make them shake in their boots and change their ways – I doubt it.
There should be a proper process in the church for holding such men accountable. Where they would face severe penalties for actions of this type. It must be transparent in order that their crimes and their punishments are clear for all to see in order to deter any who would think of emulating them. Calls for this accountability have been constant over the years from survivors of abuse. Yet these calls have been ignored.
In 2015 during the time I was a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors it recommended a structure to bring such accountability. This Accountability Tribunal process was approved by the Holy Father and it was announced on 10th June 2015 including the fact that the Pope would be providing resources and personnel for it. However it never happened. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith did not implement it as they claimed it was “not needed”.
Carinal Muller, the then Prefect of the CDF, in his interview with the National Catholic Reporter on 14th March 2017 in regard to this Accountability Tribunal said the following:
“It was a project, but after an intense dialogue between various dicasteries involved in the fight against paedophilia in the clergy, it was concluded that any criminal negligence by bishops can be addressed through the existing competence,tools and legal means of the Congregation for Bishops. In addition, the Holy Father can always entrust a special case to the Congregation”.
Obviously the Pope did not see these processes as sufficient or he would not have approved the recommendation for an Accountability Tribunal. Either way these “tools” and “legal means” are not being used to address the actions of the Chilean bishops – why not?
When the CDF refused to implement the Accountability Tribunal Pope Francis attempted to circumvent this block by announcing an alternative process in his moto propo “As a Loving Mother” which actually expanded the accountability process to include religious superiors as well as bishops.
Article 1 of this reads:
§ 1. The diocesan Bishop or Eparch, or one who even holds a temporary title and is responsible for a Particular Church, or other community of faithful that is its legal equivalent, according to can. 368 CIC or can. 313 CCEO, can be legitimately removed from this office if he has through negligence committed or through omission facilitated acts that have caused grave harm to others, either to physical persons or to the community as a whole. The harm may be physical, moral, spiritual or through the use of patrimony.
§ 2. The diocesan Bishop or Eparch can only be removed if he is objectively lacking in a very grave manner the diligence that his pastoral office demands of him, even without serious moral fault on his part.
§ 3. In the case of the abuse of minors and vulnerable adults it is enough that the lack of diligence be grave.
§ 4. The Major Superiors of Religious Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right are equivalent to diocesan Bishops and Eparchs.
The duty to implement this new accountability procedure was given to the Congregation for the Bishops. However it too seems to have gone the way of the original Accountability Tribunal - into the sand.
Surely the actions of the bishops and cardinals in Chile fall within the scope of this process yet it is not being used. Does the Pope or the Vatican not owe an explanation as to why this is so. If it is not used in this case and bishops are allowed to walk away without facing any disciplinary hearing then will it ever be used? Does any bishop or religious superior anywhere need to fear it?
The lack of a proper process to hold church leaders accountable for their actions within the church structure will lead to continued abuse of power and failure to protect minors from harm. Announcing such processes may be good PR but without implementation nothing changes. This is why I believe Chilean bishops being allowed to resign and walk away from their disgraceful and harmful actions is not enough if we want to prevent their behaviour being repeated in other locations. Nor is it enough to show that the church is truly determined to protect minors in every way possible. Only strong, transparent implementation of proper accountability processes will indicate real change.
===========================================================================================================
I am delighted for the abuse survivors in Chile that they have been rewarded for the courage and perseverance they have shown over many years in the teeth of the most vicious and reprehensible treatment by their Catholic Church leaders. There is no denying the offer of resignation from all the active bishops in Chile is an unprecedented event. No doubt the Chile church will now undergo reform in personnel and practice. All of this is very welcome.
I read yesterday a suggestion that myself and others were guilty of cynicism because we expressed the view that this was not enough. Why would I not just rejoice at the sight of bishops resigning and a local church being overhauled and leave it at that? The reason is that Chile is not unique. What has gone on in Chile is no different than what has happened in other local churches around the world, America, Australia and my own country Ireland being the most well-known examples. But we know these are not alone, it has happened in many other countries, it is happening now and will continue to happen into the future if real structural and attitudinal change is not embraced by the Catholic Church.
The letter from the Pope to the Chile bishops leaked to the press shows that there was “grave negligence”, reports of abuse were ignored, investigations (when they took place) superficial and minimisation of crimes to mere “moral lapses” the guilty being moved into new positions with free access to children. We know from the recent words of Cardinal Errazuriz he did not take action against the prolific abuser Fr. Karadima because he was a charismatic priest who “brought young men into the church”.
While abusing their own power and facilitating further crimes against young people these men then felt justified in efforts to destroy the reputation and lives of survivors who fought to expose their toxic behaviour. In case we forget how comfortable these church men, holding the highest offices, felt in using devious methods to silence a survivor we only need to read the e mail correspondence between Cardinal Errazuria and Cardinal Ezzati published in 2015
http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/2015/09/09/los-correos-secretos-entre-ezzati-y-errazuriz-y-el-rol-clave-de-enrique-correa-en-las-operaciones-politicas-de-la-iglesia/
Translation: http://www.mariecollins.net/chile.html (scroll down to second item)
It is clear Cardinal Errazuriz successfully prevented the Chilean survivor Juan Carlos Cruz from speaking at the Anglopone conference in Rome 2014 and intervened in 2015 to prevent him from being considered for membership of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors when the Cardinal learned I had put his name forward.
So what is to be the punishment of these church leaders, bishops and cardinals, who facilitated abusers and tried to destroy victims? In the case of the bishops it seems they are to be allowed to resign and walk away. In the case of the cardinals so far we do not know. Cardinal Erazzuriz is still a member of the Council of Cardinals (the C9) the most senior advisers to the Pope but most likely he will be allowed in time to quietly retire. Is this enough? In my view it is not.
The Vatican likes this way of dealing with men such as this. It means their reputations are not sullied by the exposure of their individual wrongdoing, they can claim never to have been found guilty of anything, they save face and it moves things along quickly, the sooner to be forgotten. They will retain their titles and no doubt in many case also their privileges. Does this send a dire message to those church leaders at this moment protecting abusers or destroying victims – a message to make them shake in their boots and change their ways – I doubt it.
There should be a proper process in the church for holding such men accountable. Where they would face severe penalties for actions of this type. It must be transparent in order that their crimes and their punishments are clear for all to see in order to deter any who would think of emulating them. Calls for this accountability have been constant over the years from survivors of abuse. Yet these calls have been ignored.
In 2015 during the time I was a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors it recommended a structure to bring such accountability. This Accountability Tribunal process was approved by the Holy Father and it was announced on 10th June 2015 including the fact that the Pope would be providing resources and personnel for it. However it never happened. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith did not implement it as they claimed it was “not needed”.
Carinal Muller, the then Prefect of the CDF, in his interview with the National Catholic Reporter on 14th March 2017 in regard to this Accountability Tribunal said the following:
“It was a project, but after an intense dialogue between various dicasteries involved in the fight against paedophilia in the clergy, it was concluded that any criminal negligence by bishops can be addressed through the existing competence,tools and legal means of the Congregation for Bishops. In addition, the Holy Father can always entrust a special case to the Congregation”.
Obviously the Pope did not see these processes as sufficient or he would not have approved the recommendation for an Accountability Tribunal. Either way these “tools” and “legal means” are not being used to address the actions of the Chilean bishops – why not?
When the CDF refused to implement the Accountability Tribunal Pope Francis attempted to circumvent this block by announcing an alternative process in his moto propo “As a Loving Mother” which actually expanded the accountability process to include religious superiors as well as bishops.
Article 1 of this reads:
§ 1. The diocesan Bishop or Eparch, or one who even holds a temporary title and is responsible for a Particular Church, or other community of faithful that is its legal equivalent, according to can. 368 CIC or can. 313 CCEO, can be legitimately removed from this office if he has through negligence committed or through omission facilitated acts that have caused grave harm to others, either to physical persons or to the community as a whole. The harm may be physical, moral, spiritual or through the use of patrimony.
§ 2. The diocesan Bishop or Eparch can only be removed if he is objectively lacking in a very grave manner the diligence that his pastoral office demands of him, even without serious moral fault on his part.
§ 3. In the case of the abuse of minors and vulnerable adults it is enough that the lack of diligence be grave.
§ 4. The Major Superiors of Religious Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right are equivalent to diocesan Bishops and Eparchs.
The duty to implement this new accountability procedure was given to the Congregation for the Bishops. However it too seems to have gone the way of the original Accountability Tribunal - into the sand.
Surely the actions of the bishops and cardinals in Chile fall within the scope of this process yet it is not being used. Does the Pope or the Vatican not owe an explanation as to why this is so. If it is not used in this case and bishops are allowed to walk away without facing any disciplinary hearing then will it ever be used? Does any bishop or religious superior anywhere need to fear it?
The lack of a proper process to hold church leaders accountable for their actions within the church structure will lead to continued abuse of power and failure to protect minors from harm. Announcing such processes may be good PR but without implementation nothing changes. This is why I believe Chilean bishops being allowed to resign and walk away from their disgraceful and harmful actions is not enough if we want to prevent their behaviour being repeated in other locations. Nor is it enough to show that the church is truly determined to protect minors in every way possible. Only strong, transparent implementation of proper accountability processes will indicate real change.
===========================================================================================================
Pope meets almost weekly with victims of abuse 15th February 2018
It is interesting to read the news today
It is interesting to read the news today
THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS 17th January 2018
What is happening with the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PCPM)? Why has it been allowed to fall into abeyance? Why has there been no official statement of explanation?
It is now one month since members’ appointments for the first three year term of the PCPM expired - 17h December 2017. So far no announcement has been made as to which of the former members will be reappointed for a second term or what new members will be joining.
Fr. Hans Zollner (a first term member) in a tweet on 13th December said a “new term” of the Commission “will start in 2018” . Later the same day in another tweet he said "we have sent in names for members, we'll need to wait until new membership is appointed” The next proposed meeting of the PCPM is in four months’ time – April – is that when it is intended the next term will begin?
Emer McCarthy, the commission's projects manager and media coordinator, when asked by the NCR [1] if Fr. Zollner's comments meant that the commission would go into an inactive state Dec. 17 last is quoted as saying "The only response I can give is that we await the Holy Father’s decision regarding future membership." "As soon as we have any news we will be in contact to inform the press and the public” Since then silence.
I resigned my membership of the Commission in March 2017 primarily due to lack of co-operation by some curia departments with the Commission but for other reasons also. One of these was the steady erosion of the independence of the members.
In the beginning members and public alike were assured the PCPM would be independent from the control of any Vatican department, the members would decide their own working methods and projects and would be responsible directly to the Holy Father. During the first term my experience was of a determined effort to undermine all this and shift the planning, work and its’ control to the Commission’s permanent administration within the Vatican. I objected to these moves during my term but failed to prevent their steady advance.
My concern at this point is that what we are seeing is a further manifestation of this shift in the status of the PCPM from an independent entity to just another permanent Vatican Department controlling a membership which will meet less often and have little real power. It appears to me that the obvious lack of urgency or any slight of concern in the Vatican about the Commissions’ current status reflects how unimportant the membership is considered. Also the low priority being given to this issue of child protection despite the assurances so often given by the Pope and others that it has the highest priority!
A statement by Emer McCarthy speaking of the administrative office (on Twitter 14th Dec 17) intended to reassure a concerned survivor “We are indeed working away. Our members have laid good foundations in the first three years, now we must build on them”. The “we” here being, it would appear, the administration. This was no reassurance at all if you do not want to see the work and control of the PCPM centered within a permanent Vatican department rather than within its’ expert membership. We know the issue of child protection in the church (the sexual abuse of children in particular) was in the hands of internal Vatican departments before the setting up of the PCPM and we also know what a disaster that was for so many children and families. Do we wish to go back there?
There was a promise from Cardinal Sean O’Malley President of the PCPM at the very beginning that it would work transparently. Where is that transparency now?
If anyone is in doubt about the duration of the first term of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors it can be seen clearly in the members’ letters of appointment - a copy of mine is here [2]
[1] https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/ -commission-member-suggests-francis-may-let-group-lapse-temporarily
[2] http://www.mariecollins.net/documenrts.html
What is happening with the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (PCPM)? Why has it been allowed to fall into abeyance? Why has there been no official statement of explanation?
It is now one month since members’ appointments for the first three year term of the PCPM expired - 17h December 2017. So far no announcement has been made as to which of the former members will be reappointed for a second term or what new members will be joining.
Fr. Hans Zollner (a first term member) in a tweet on 13th December said a “new term” of the Commission “will start in 2018” . Later the same day in another tweet he said "we have sent in names for members, we'll need to wait until new membership is appointed” The next proposed meeting of the PCPM is in four months’ time – April – is that when it is intended the next term will begin?
Emer McCarthy, the commission's projects manager and media coordinator, when asked by the NCR [1] if Fr. Zollner's comments meant that the commission would go into an inactive state Dec. 17 last is quoted as saying "The only response I can give is that we await the Holy Father’s decision regarding future membership." "As soon as we have any news we will be in contact to inform the press and the public” Since then silence.
I resigned my membership of the Commission in March 2017 primarily due to lack of co-operation by some curia departments with the Commission but for other reasons also. One of these was the steady erosion of the independence of the members.
In the beginning members and public alike were assured the PCPM would be independent from the control of any Vatican department, the members would decide their own working methods and projects and would be responsible directly to the Holy Father. During the first term my experience was of a determined effort to undermine all this and shift the planning, work and its’ control to the Commission’s permanent administration within the Vatican. I objected to these moves during my term but failed to prevent their steady advance.
My concern at this point is that what we are seeing is a further manifestation of this shift in the status of the PCPM from an independent entity to just another permanent Vatican Department controlling a membership which will meet less often and have little real power. It appears to me that the obvious lack of urgency or any slight of concern in the Vatican about the Commissions’ current status reflects how unimportant the membership is considered. Also the low priority being given to this issue of child protection despite the assurances so often given by the Pope and others that it has the highest priority!
A statement by Emer McCarthy speaking of the administrative office (on Twitter 14th Dec 17) intended to reassure a concerned survivor “We are indeed working away. Our members have laid good foundations in the first three years, now we must build on them”. The “we” here being, it would appear, the administration. This was no reassurance at all if you do not want to see the work and control of the PCPM centered within a permanent Vatican department rather than within its’ expert membership. We know the issue of child protection in the church (the sexual abuse of children in particular) was in the hands of internal Vatican departments before the setting up of the PCPM and we also know what a disaster that was for so many children and families. Do we wish to go back there?
There was a promise from Cardinal Sean O’Malley President of the PCPM at the very beginning that it would work transparently. Where is that transparency now?
If anyone is in doubt about the duration of the first term of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors it can be seen clearly in the members’ letters of appointment - a copy of mine is here [2]
[1] https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/ -commission-member-suggests-francis-may-let-group-lapse-temporarily
[2] http://www.mariecollins.net/documenrts.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARDINAL GEORGE PELL 29th June 2017
Cardinal Pell.is facing criminal charges of sex abuse in his home country of Australia.
I have been asked if I think he will be found guilty of these charges. As I have always believed in justice for all it would not be right for me to pre judge any criminal case before it is tried in a court, the law will take it's course.
What I have no hesitation in saying is that it has been proved that Cardinal Pell is guilty of the appalling mishandling of cases of abuse when still in place in Australia and causing untold pain to the victims in those cases. He should never have been allowed to hide out in the Vatican to avoid having to face those in his home country who needed answers. The fact that Cardinal Pell was appointed to a very senior post in the Vatican rather than having to face any sanction for his mishandling of abuse cases was a slap in the face to all those he had let down so badly, not only victims but Catholic people who have spent years now hearing assurance from the Catholic Church that it is taking the issue seriously. How does promotion to an exalted position in the Church show justice to those he had failed?.
Finally now that the Cardinal has actually been charged with abuse himself he has been stepped down from his position and will not be allowed to avoid facing court by remaining in the Vatican - far too late. Leaving aside the issue of whether he should have been in that position in the first place, once an accusation of sexual abuse was made against him he should have been stepped down until that accusation had been investigated. This is the standard that applies to ordinary priests and religious in my country and elsewhere under Church guidelines- why should rank make any difference.
-----------------------------------------------
Bishop Accountability
The case of Cardinal Pell has shown is how little reliance we can put on assurances from the Catholic Church that bishops and religious superiors will face sanctions if they mishandle abuse cases. It did not happen with him and still we have not seen any bishop transparently sanctioned or removed for negligence in handling abuse. We were told that the PCPM's recommended Accountability Tribunal announced in June 2015, though never implemented, had not been needed as the Holy Father's Moto Propo in 2016 "As a Loving Mother" expanded on it and all provisions for sanctions were in place and would be implemented.
We are now half way through 2017 - can the Vatican show that any cases of negligent bishops or religious superiors have been been examined or that the provisions of the moto propo been put in place? or is it just another case of many promises, many words but no action.
============================================================================================================
Cardinal Pell.is facing criminal charges of sex abuse in his home country of Australia.
I have been asked if I think he will be found guilty of these charges. As I have always believed in justice for all it would not be right for me to pre judge any criminal case before it is tried in a court, the law will take it's course.
What I have no hesitation in saying is that it has been proved that Cardinal Pell is guilty of the appalling mishandling of cases of abuse when still in place in Australia and causing untold pain to the victims in those cases. He should never have been allowed to hide out in the Vatican to avoid having to face those in his home country who needed answers. The fact that Cardinal Pell was appointed to a very senior post in the Vatican rather than having to face any sanction for his mishandling of abuse cases was a slap in the face to all those he had let down so badly, not only victims but Catholic people who have spent years now hearing assurance from the Catholic Church that it is taking the issue seriously. How does promotion to an exalted position in the Church show justice to those he had failed?.
Finally now that the Cardinal has actually been charged with abuse himself he has been stepped down from his position and will not be allowed to avoid facing court by remaining in the Vatican - far too late. Leaving aside the issue of whether he should have been in that position in the first place, once an accusation of sexual abuse was made against him he should have been stepped down until that accusation had been investigated. This is the standard that applies to ordinary priests and religious in my country and elsewhere under Church guidelines- why should rank make any difference.
-----------------------------------------------
Bishop Accountability
The case of Cardinal Pell has shown is how little reliance we can put on assurances from the Catholic Church that bishops and religious superiors will face sanctions if they mishandle abuse cases. It did not happen with him and still we have not seen any bishop transparently sanctioned or removed for negligence in handling abuse. We were told that the PCPM's recommended Accountability Tribunal announced in June 2015, though never implemented, had not been needed as the Holy Father's Moto Propo in 2016 "As a Loving Mother" expanded on it and all provisions for sanctions were in place and would be implemented.
We are now half way through 2017 - can the Vatican show that any cases of negligent bishops or religious superiors have been been examined or that the provisions of the moto propo been put in place? or is it just another case of many promises, many words but no action.
============================================================================================================
CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER Update 14th June 2017 Still no response of any sort from Cardinal Muller to my open letter of the 14th March - also sent privately to him. Nothing but silence - it would appear the truth is too hard to answer.
============================================================================================================
============================================================================================================
Below is my response. to an interview with Cardinal Muller Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published in the Corriere della Sera newspaper 5th March 2017. The interview was in regard to my statement made on my recent resignation from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. (scroll down for the Cardinal's interview)
I found many of the Cardinal's responses, to questions in regard to my statement to be inaccurate. I have therefore written this open letter to the Cardinal to set the record straight
OPEN LETTER TO CARDINAL GERHARD LUDWIG MULLER – PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Published 14th March 2017 - National Catholic Reporter
Dear Cardinal Muller,
I read with interest the answers you gave to Corriere della Sera March 5 in reply to items in my statement following my resignation from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. There are some things you say in this interview to which I feel I need to respond.
Maybe I can help with an example. In 2015, invitations went to your Congregation from some of the commission's working groups asking that a representative attend their upcoming meetings in Rome to discuss issues of mutual interest.
The invitations were declined and then the members were informed by the Commission Secretary, Msgr. Robert Oliver, that face-to-face meetings would not be possible and any communication with dicasteries must be done in writing.
Things changed eventually, but this took over a year. It was September 2016 before a representative of the CDF was made available and attended Commission working group meetings. The discussions which ensued were very helpful, hopefully for your Congregation as well as the Commission.
I don’t know what form this permanent contact took. All I can say is the members of the Commission did not receive any formal reports or see any positive results generated by such contact.
Indeed, one of your CDF staff was a member of the Commission. It is surprising though -- as you say you had permanent contact with the Commission -- that you are not aware that this staff member, Claudio Papale, ceased active involvement with the Commission in 2015 (although members were not notified of his resignation until May 2016).
The last meeting he attended was the October 2015 plenary. With that meeting being held four months after the announcement of the pope's decision to create a new tribunal to judge bishops' negligent in responding to abuse, Papale was in an excellent position to update commission members on the response within the doctrinal congregation to that initiative.
It was a project you say, only a project? Rereading the Vatican's June 10, 2015 public announcement, it appears to be far more. Very specific actions had already been authorised by the Holy Father, including:
The Holy Father also had already "authorized that sufficient resources will be provided for this purpose."
Despite the close collaboration you say existed with the Commission, it was not included in this discussion among Vatican dicasteries. Would this not have been a good idea as it would certainly be correct to categorise the Commission as being part of the "fight" to which you refer as well as the originator of the initiative?
You state that the conclusion reached was that the tribunal was not necessary as any negligence could be addressed through the "competences," "tools" and "legal means" already in place in the Congregation for Bishops. And if in a "special case" this was not sufficient the Holy Father could always entrust it to your Congregation. So no change was found to be necessary and no implementation took place.
I would like to thank you, Cardinal, for confirming by your words that my statement on the tribunal was true. The pontifical commission recommended it, the Council of Cardinals and the Pope approved it, and then it was rejected by your congregation.
A question comes to mind. If all necessary means have been in place to address the case of a bishop negligent in respect of protection of children from abuse, why then has no bishop been officially, transparently sanctioned or removed for this negligence?
If it is not lack of laws, then is it lack of will? I am sure many survivors, myself included, would be interested, Cardinal, in the answer to this question.
If you are in doubt about what these "incidents" were, you might refresh your memory by looking at the formal letter of response sent from your Congregation to the Commission Dec. 15, 2016. In its very first paragraph that letter lists the two requests as being in regard to "guidelines" and "sending of acknowledgment letters."
In the latter case, the Commission's recommendation [see its Feb. 8, 2016 press statement] that went to the Holy Father and which he approved was that all Vatican dicasteries would acknowledge directly letters sent to them by survivors.
When this recommendation was discussed with the official representative of the CDF at a working group meeting in September 2016 he saw no difficulty in it being done. Yet two months later in the formal written response from your Congregation it was refused.
In any area of endeavour it is difficult to work with a body which is inconsistent in its approach, as you do not know where you stand at any particular time.
The reason given for rejecting of the Commission request, as you confirm in this interview, is respect for "subsidiarity." This emphasis on subsidiarity shows that within the Church respect for the hierarchical system and its participants still outweighs respect for the individual human person.
I was taught to believe that all are equal in the sight of God but it seems there is a different view in your congregation when it comes to the local bishop and a victim of abuse. It appears that for you the concern that the local bishop might feel disrespected far outweighs any concern about disrespecting the survivor.
How many much more fundamental measures in regard to justice for survivors and the prevention of abuse are being hidebound by anachronistic, bureaucratic, internal hierarchical considerations?
You might check the aforementioned letter to refresh your memory in regard to the other deeply troubling "incident:" the refusal of cooperation on the Safeguarding Guidelines which are being recommended by the Commission and which the Congregation seems particularly reluctant to discuss.
It may be that it is felt a group of what are seen as "outside" experts are encroaching on what the dicastery views as their area of responsibility. If this is the case could there not be some way to overcome this by frank discussions of the problem?
The safety of minors in the future is too important for an impasse of any sort to be allowed to stand. Surely every effort must be made to resolve whatever difficulties there are.
As a former Commission member I am very clear on the function of the CDF and have no misunderstanding in regard to its responsibilities (it would be odd indeed if members of a papal commission were ignorant in the way that is suggested).
The Commission had not expected the Congregation to send anything other than a confirmation to the correspondent that their letter had been received and would receive attention.
This would be pastoral in the sense only that the writer would know they were not being ignored. I am sad a misleading impression has been put into the public domain about this.
Cardinal, it seems you have forgotten the evening we spent seated together at a small dinner in Dublin after my appointment to the Commission?
During the meal we discussed together the new Commission, my appointment to it and in general the issue of abuse in the Church. Also present were other CDF officials, including Msgr. John Kennedy and then-Fr. Robert Oliver, who before his appointment to the commission was serving as your congregation's Promotor of Justice.
Finally, with respect, Cardinal, I do not know what the motivation is in regard to any difficulties put in the way of the pontifical commisison. All it wishes to do is bring better protection to children and vulnerable adults wherever in the world the Catholic Church is present. If there are problems nothing is gained by maintaining a pretence that all is well.
I would ask that instead of falling back into the Church's default position of denial and obfuscation, when a criticism like mine is raised the people of the church deserve to be given a proper explanation. We are entitled to transparency, honesty and clarity.
No longer can disfunction be kept hidden behind institutional closed doors. This only succeeds as long as those who know the truth are willing to remain silent.
Yours sincerely,
Marie Collins
Former member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors
-------------------------------------------------------------
I found many of the Cardinal's responses, to questions in regard to my statement to be inaccurate. I have therefore written this open letter to the Cardinal to set the record straight
OPEN LETTER TO CARDINAL GERHARD LUDWIG MULLER – PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Published 14th March 2017 - National Catholic Reporter
Dear Cardinal Muller,
I read with interest the answers you gave to Corriere della Sera March 5 in reply to items in my statement following my resignation from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. There are some things you say in this interview to which I feel I need to respond.
- You state you "cannot understand the talk of lack of cooperation" between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the pontifical commission.
Maybe I can help with an example. In 2015, invitations went to your Congregation from some of the commission's working groups asking that a representative attend their upcoming meetings in Rome to discuss issues of mutual interest.
The invitations were declined and then the members were informed by the Commission Secretary, Msgr. Robert Oliver, that face-to-face meetings would not be possible and any communication with dicasteries must be done in writing.
Things changed eventually, but this took over a year. It was September 2016 before a representative of the CDF was made available and attended Commission working group meetings. The discussions which ensued were very helpful, hopefully for your Congregation as well as the Commission.
- You say that "in recent years there has been a permanent contact" between the commission and the CDF.
I don’t know what form this permanent contact took. All I can say is the members of the Commission did not receive any formal reports or see any positive results generated by such contact.
- You continue with the comment that "one of our staff is part of it [the Commission]."
Indeed, one of your CDF staff was a member of the Commission. It is surprising though -- as you say you had permanent contact with the Commission -- that you are not aware that this staff member, Claudio Papale, ceased active involvement with the Commission in 2015 (although members were not notified of his resignation until May 2016).
The last meeting he attended was the October 2015 plenary. With that meeting being held four months after the announcement of the pope's decision to create a new tribunal to judge bishops' negligent in responding to abuse, Papale was in an excellent position to update commission members on the response within the doctrinal congregation to that initiative.
- About the new tribunal, you say an "intense dialogue between various dicasteries involved in the fight against pedophilia in the clergy" took place following the pope's decision and that the tribunal was only considered a "project."
It was a project you say, only a project? Rereading the Vatican's June 10, 2015 public announcement, it appears to be far more. Very specific actions had already been authorised by the Holy Father, including:
- "The establishment of a new Judicial Section in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;"
- "Appointment of stable personnel to undertake service in the Tribunal," and;
- "Appointment of a Secretary to assist the Prefect with the Tribunal."
The Holy Father also had already "authorized that sufficient resources will be provided for this purpose."
Despite the close collaboration you say existed with the Commission, it was not included in this discussion among Vatican dicasteries. Would this not have been a good idea as it would certainly be correct to categorise the Commission as being part of the "fight" to which you refer as well as the originator of the initiative?
You state that the conclusion reached was that the tribunal was not necessary as any negligence could be addressed through the "competences," "tools" and "legal means" already in place in the Congregation for Bishops. And if in a "special case" this was not sufficient the Holy Father could always entrust it to your Congregation. So no change was found to be necessary and no implementation took place.
I would like to thank you, Cardinal, for confirming by your words that my statement on the tribunal was true. The pontifical commission recommended it, the Council of Cardinals and the Pope approved it, and then it was rejected by your congregation.
A question comes to mind. If all necessary means have been in place to address the case of a bishop negligent in respect of protection of children from abuse, why then has no bishop been officially, transparently sanctioned or removed for this negligence?
If it is not lack of laws, then is it lack of will? I am sure many survivors, myself included, would be interested, Cardinal, in the answer to this question.
- In reference to your congregation's refusal to both cooperate with the Commission's work on the Safeguarding Guidelines and to acknowledge letters sent to the Vatican by abuse survivors, you state: "I know nothing about these two alleged incidents."
If you are in doubt about what these "incidents" were, you might refresh your memory by looking at the formal letter of response sent from your Congregation to the Commission Dec. 15, 2016. In its very first paragraph that letter lists the two requests as being in regard to "guidelines" and "sending of acknowledgment letters."
In the latter case, the Commission's recommendation [see its Feb. 8, 2016 press statement] that went to the Holy Father and which he approved was that all Vatican dicasteries would acknowledge directly letters sent to them by survivors.
When this recommendation was discussed with the official representative of the CDF at a working group meeting in September 2016 he saw no difficulty in it being done. Yet two months later in the formal written response from your Congregation it was refused.
In any area of endeavour it is difficult to work with a body which is inconsistent in its approach, as you do not know where you stand at any particular time.
The reason given for rejecting of the Commission request, as you confirm in this interview, is respect for "subsidiarity." This emphasis on subsidiarity shows that within the Church respect for the hierarchical system and its participants still outweighs respect for the individual human person.
I was taught to believe that all are equal in the sight of God but it seems there is a different view in your congregation when it comes to the local bishop and a victim of abuse. It appears that for you the concern that the local bishop might feel disrespected far outweighs any concern about disrespecting the survivor.
How many much more fundamental measures in regard to justice for survivors and the prevention of abuse are being hidebound by anachronistic, bureaucratic, internal hierarchical considerations?
You might check the aforementioned letter to refresh your memory in regard to the other deeply troubling "incident:" the refusal of cooperation on the Safeguarding Guidelines which are being recommended by the Commission and which the Congregation seems particularly reluctant to discuss.
It may be that it is felt a group of what are seen as "outside" experts are encroaching on what the dicastery views as their area of responsibility. If this is the case could there not be some way to overcome this by frank discussions of the problem?
The safety of minors in the future is too important for an impasse of any sort to be allowed to stand. Surely every effort must be made to resolve whatever difficulties there are.
- You say "the complaints are based on misunderstanding" about the task of the CDF.
As a former Commission member I am very clear on the function of the CDF and have no misunderstanding in regard to its responsibilities (it would be odd indeed if members of a papal commission were ignorant in the way that is suggested).
The Commission had not expected the Congregation to send anything other than a confirmation to the correspondent that their letter had been received and would receive attention.
This would be pastoral in the sense only that the writer would know they were not being ignored. I am sad a misleading impression has been put into the public domain about this.
- Lastly, a more personal comment in regard to myself, you state "I have never had the chance to meet her."
Cardinal, it seems you have forgotten the evening we spent seated together at a small dinner in Dublin after my appointment to the Commission?
During the meal we discussed together the new Commission, my appointment to it and in general the issue of abuse in the Church. Also present were other CDF officials, including Msgr. John Kennedy and then-Fr. Robert Oliver, who before his appointment to the commission was serving as your congregation's Promotor of Justice.
Finally, with respect, Cardinal, I do not know what the motivation is in regard to any difficulties put in the way of the pontifical commisison. All it wishes to do is bring better protection to children and vulnerable adults wherever in the world the Catholic Church is present. If there are problems nothing is gained by maintaining a pretence that all is well.
I would ask that instead of falling back into the Church's default position of denial and obfuscation, when a criticism like mine is raised the people of the church deserve to be given a proper explanation. We are entitled to transparency, honesty and clarity.
No longer can disfunction be kept hidden behind institutional closed doors. This only succeeds as long as those who know the truth are willing to remain silent.
Yours sincerely,
Marie Collins
Former member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARDINAL MULLER'S INTERVIEW
Corriere della Sera - 5th March 2017
“The Roman Curia against the Pope? A cliché. The Church is compact against Pedophilia”
The prefect of the Sant’Uffizio, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, reply to allegations of Marie Collins: I am ready to meet her
VATICAN CITY STATE “I cannot understand why there is talk of lack of cooperation”. Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, theologian, curator of the Complete Works of Ratzinger, and, since 2012, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is the first time that he has spoken since Marie Collins, a victim of a paedophile priest when she was 13, resigned from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, denouncing “a shameful lack of cooperation” from the Curia and, in particular, his Congregation. It is here, in the palace of the former Holy Office, where priests accused of paedophilia are tried. The Cardinal is an imposing man, with a dry tone.
Your Eminence, did you have occasion to speak to Marie Collins before the resignation?
“I have never had the chance to meet her. But of course I am ready, nothing prevents it”.
Has there been resistance in the Curia and in your dicastery?
“I think we should put an end to this cliché, the idea that there is on the one hand the Pope who wants reform and the on the other hand a resistance group who would block it. It is part of our Catholic faith, and the working ethos of the Roman Curia, to support the Pope's universal mission, entrusted to him by Jesus Christ”.
So, what happened?
“The Commission's task is very different from that of the Congregation. The latter is the competent court for canonical prosecution of those clerics accused of the most serious crimes. The scope is different, but the Congregation collaborated with the setting up of the Commissions. One of our staff is part of it. I can say that over the past few years there has been permanent contact. And Cardinal O'Malley, who chairs the Commission, has recently been appointed by the Holy Father as member of the Congregation: all in order to put in plce the most effective measures for the protection of minors in the Church”.
Collins has cited two events: a “procedural change” in the care of victims and a “request for cooperation”, both “rejected” by the former Holy Office. Do you agree?
“I am not aware of these alleged incidents. The Commission has just forwarded a formal request asking us to write letters to the victims to express the Church's closeness to their suffering. But this act of pastoral care is a task of the bishops in their own particular churches, and of the superiors general of the religious institutes involved. If there is a decision of the Pope or the assignation of a specific task, there is no resistance. The Congregation has the task of carrying out a canonical trial. Personal contact with the victims should be done by local priests. And when a letter arrives, we always ask the bishop that he take responsibility for the pastoral care of the victims, making clear to them that the Congregation will do everything possible to see justice done. It is a misconception that this office, in Rome, is able to take care of all the dioceses and religious orders in the world. That would not respect the legitimate autonomy of dioceses and the principle of subsidiarity”.
And prevention?
“The officers of the Congregation can give advice to national episcopal conferences on the guidelines for applying the criminal law and pastoral proposals to protect minors. Prevention is very important. The complaints are based on amisunderstanding about our real task: the Congregation acts as the apostolic Supreme Court on the matter. All our personnel share the human suffering of the victims of abuse. Our task is to do everything possible to make sure justice is done, and to prevent further crimes”.
Has the “Bishops Tribunal”, announced in 2015 by the Congregation, started working?
“It was a project, but after an intense dialogue between various dicasteries involved in the fight against paedophilia in the clergy, it was concluded that any criminal negligence by bishops can be addressed through the existing competence,tools and legal means of the Congregation for Bishops. In addition, the Holy Father can always entrust a special case to the Congregation”.
Father Zollner spoke to Corriere about “passive resistance”: “for years, in the Church as in society generally, no-one spoke about abuse” and it is now about “a culture change of culture, work for the long-term”.
“Father Zollner is a great expert, and he highlights a great wound in society. The last three Popes, along with the worldwide episcopate, have addressed the problem in the Church, but we know it is a problem of the whole of society in a globalized world, for families and professions that have to do with children. I don’t think we can fix or improve the situation with the threat of punishment alone, whether civil or canonical. We need a total change: from a focus on the self in the field of sexuality to the full respect of the person. With the Commission, Francis wanted to offer an exemplary service, to help the Church and the whole of society worldwide. We can hope that other educational organisations follow the Church, which is in the vanguard of this struggle. Paedophilia is a monstrous crime and also a grave sin. Let us remember the words of Jesus to the children and his condemnation to those who do them harm”.
Corriere della Sera - 5th March 2017
“The Roman Curia against the Pope? A cliché. The Church is compact against Pedophilia”
The prefect of the Sant’Uffizio, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, reply to allegations of Marie Collins: I am ready to meet her
VATICAN CITY STATE “I cannot understand why there is talk of lack of cooperation”. Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, theologian, curator of the Complete Works of Ratzinger, and, since 2012, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is the first time that he has spoken since Marie Collins, a victim of a paedophile priest when she was 13, resigned from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, denouncing “a shameful lack of cooperation” from the Curia and, in particular, his Congregation. It is here, in the palace of the former Holy Office, where priests accused of paedophilia are tried. The Cardinal is an imposing man, with a dry tone.
Your Eminence, did you have occasion to speak to Marie Collins before the resignation?
“I have never had the chance to meet her. But of course I am ready, nothing prevents it”.
Has there been resistance in the Curia and in your dicastery?
“I think we should put an end to this cliché, the idea that there is on the one hand the Pope who wants reform and the on the other hand a resistance group who would block it. It is part of our Catholic faith, and the working ethos of the Roman Curia, to support the Pope's universal mission, entrusted to him by Jesus Christ”.
So, what happened?
“The Commission's task is very different from that of the Congregation. The latter is the competent court for canonical prosecution of those clerics accused of the most serious crimes. The scope is different, but the Congregation collaborated with the setting up of the Commissions. One of our staff is part of it. I can say that over the past few years there has been permanent contact. And Cardinal O'Malley, who chairs the Commission, has recently been appointed by the Holy Father as member of the Congregation: all in order to put in plce the most effective measures for the protection of minors in the Church”.
Collins has cited two events: a “procedural change” in the care of victims and a “request for cooperation”, both “rejected” by the former Holy Office. Do you agree?
“I am not aware of these alleged incidents. The Commission has just forwarded a formal request asking us to write letters to the victims to express the Church's closeness to their suffering. But this act of pastoral care is a task of the bishops in their own particular churches, and of the superiors general of the religious institutes involved. If there is a decision of the Pope or the assignation of a specific task, there is no resistance. The Congregation has the task of carrying out a canonical trial. Personal contact with the victims should be done by local priests. And when a letter arrives, we always ask the bishop that he take responsibility for the pastoral care of the victims, making clear to them that the Congregation will do everything possible to see justice done. It is a misconception that this office, in Rome, is able to take care of all the dioceses and religious orders in the world. That would not respect the legitimate autonomy of dioceses and the principle of subsidiarity”.
And prevention?
“The officers of the Congregation can give advice to national episcopal conferences on the guidelines for applying the criminal law and pastoral proposals to protect minors. Prevention is very important. The complaints are based on amisunderstanding about our real task: the Congregation acts as the apostolic Supreme Court on the matter. All our personnel share the human suffering of the victims of abuse. Our task is to do everything possible to make sure justice is done, and to prevent further crimes”.
Has the “Bishops Tribunal”, announced in 2015 by the Congregation, started working?
“It was a project, but after an intense dialogue between various dicasteries involved in the fight against paedophilia in the clergy, it was concluded that any criminal negligence by bishops can be addressed through the existing competence,tools and legal means of the Congregation for Bishops. In addition, the Holy Father can always entrust a special case to the Congregation”.
Father Zollner spoke to Corriere about “passive resistance”: “for years, in the Church as in society generally, no-one spoke about abuse” and it is now about “a culture change of culture, work for the long-term”.
“Father Zollner is a great expert, and he highlights a great wound in society. The last three Popes, along with the worldwide episcopate, have addressed the problem in the Church, but we know it is a problem of the whole of society in a globalized world, for families and professions that have to do with children. I don’t think we can fix or improve the situation with the threat of punishment alone, whether civil or canonical. We need a total change: from a focus on the self in the field of sexuality to the full respect of the person. With the Commission, Francis wanted to offer an exemplary service, to help the Church and the whole of society worldwide. We can hope that other educational organisations follow the Church, which is in the vanguard of this struggle. Paedophilia is a monstrous crime and also a grave sin. Let us remember the words of Jesus to the children and his condemnation to those who do them harm”.
7th March 2017
Today in the publication “Vatican Insider” in an article headed “Marie’s gesture Muller’s answer” one short paragraph revealed more than maybe the writer intended of an attitude to victims held among, as he says “curia and clergy”.
Quote: “It should not be forgotten the last two Popes’ personal testimony, who repeatedly and courageously – even at the cost of creating discontent among the curia and clergy – have met victims. Benedict and Francis have met them, have listened to them and have wept with them” [emphasis mine]
Seeing this written by someone close to those in the Vatican will shock some but not I think victims and survivors who are well aware of such attitudes. When will they change?
=======================================================================
Today in the publication “Vatican Insider” in an article headed “Marie’s gesture Muller’s answer” one short paragraph revealed more than maybe the writer intended of an attitude to victims held among, as he says “curia and clergy”.
Quote: “It should not be forgotten the last two Popes’ personal testimony, who repeatedly and courageously – even at the cost of creating discontent among the curia and clergy – have met victims. Benedict and Francis have met them, have listened to them and have wept with them” [emphasis mine]
Seeing this written by someone close to those in the Vatican will shock some but not I think victims and survivors who are well aware of such attitudes. When will they change?
=======================================================================
6th March 2017
RESPONSE TO JOHN ALLEN ARTICLE IN CRUX 1st March “Why survivor’s exit from papal panel may be a blessing in disguise”
Firstly I want to thank Crux for offering me the right of reply to the article “Why survivor’s exit from papal panel may be a blessing in disguise” [1st March]. Although in the article I am combined with Mr. Peter Saunders I am here speaking only for myself.
I was quite disturbed reading this article as in many cases Mr Allen purports to know my feelings and how I was thinking in certain situations. I found this not only to be inaccurate but also patronising.
The statement that my resignation was “inevitable” is certainly not true. There was no “inevitability” of my leaving unless Mr Allen knew in advance that there were men in the Curia who would be obstructing the Commission and I would refuse to cover it up! I accepted my appointment to the Pontifical Commission with every intention of remaining for my full term.
The article seems to infer that because I was sexually abuse by a priest in childhood I am incapable of independent though or action. That I must always be looking over my shoulder concerned how my words or actions might be seen by survivors outside the Commission. It also stated that I was put in a “politically untenable spot”. If Mr. Allen knew me and my record in working for child protection over twenty years he would know I have always kept completely clear of “politics”, both Church and Survivor politics. I have concerned myself solely with bringing better understanding of the effects of abuse on a victim’s life and better protection of the vulnerably. I have always followed my own conscience and not seen myself as a representative of any group. This at times has angered
some survivors but that has never swayed me from my determination to be independent.
Mr Allen states that my selection for appointment to the Commission was largely in order that “credibility in the survivor community would translate to the papal commission” If this is true (I do not know who are the sources for this) it would indicate enormous deceit in those who spoke to me on behalf of the pope before I accepted my appointment.
I was clear then I had no intention of being a “token” survivor there to add “credibility”. I was assured strongly this was not the case. I was being asked in order to bring my personal understanding of abuse as a survivor into the Commission as this perspective was of vital importance to the work. I had been chosen specifically because of my experience of working on safeguarding policy development, having been involved in the setting up of a diocesan child protection office, my involvement in educational projects on child protection and the response to my participation in the 2012 Symposium on abuse held in the Gregorian University. Therefore I was qualified to work on policy development, to impart understanding of the survivor experience and had shown in the past my ability to work with the Church. If all this was a lie then shame on those men of the clergy who made these statements to me. It would validate every accusation that the Church only cares for optics not the reality.
At no point during my time with the Commission did Cardinal O’Malley or members of the Commission treat me with anything other than respect as an equal, working for the better protection of children. I certainly never felt my contribution was seen as only as a name on the member list!
Mr Allen states that it was “dicey” at times for me to “figure out how much to say in public”. I can say without hesitation that at no time did I have any difficulty in discerning what I could or could not say in public. I at all times respected the confidentiality rules as per the Statutes of the Commission and would not have accepted my appointment if I had felt I was not capable of so doing.
The statement that survivors” will never be satisfied” in the context of the article infers that I would never be satisfied and that this in some way was the motivation for my resignation. If all diocese in the Church replicated the policies and their implementation in place in some diocese e.g. the Archdiocese of Dublin in Ireland, then we would be in a much better place. What I do say is no one in the Church or the secular world should ever be complacent about the safety of children or vulnerable adults.
Finally Mr. Allen says in regard to survivor input to the Commission in the future, that now I have resigned, “it could actually mean a transition to a more honest, freer, and less personally conflicted way of doing it”. I would assure anyone who is interested that I at all times was honest, free and did not spend my time “personally conflicted”.
The article clearly uses a familiar device - when in difficulties divert attention away from the actual problem. Survivors on the Commission are not the problem – the resistance to change by clerical men in the Curia is the problem!
=======================================================================
1st March 2017
STATEMENT ON MY RESIGNATION FROM THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS
I sent my letter of resignation (copied to Cardinal O’Malley), from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, to Pope Francis on the 9th February 2017 to have effect from 1st March 2017.
Since the beginning of the Commission in March 2014 I have been impressed with the dedication of my colleagues and the genuine wish by Pope Francis for assistance in dealing with the issue of clerical sexual abuse. I believe the setting up of the Commission, the bringing in of outside expertise to advise him on what was necessary to make minors safer, was a sincere move.
However, despite the Holy Father approving all the recommendations made to him by the Commission, there have been constant setbacks. This has been directly due to the resistance by some members of the Vatican Curia to the work of the Commission. The lack of co-operation, particularly by the dicastery most closely involved in dealing with cases of abuse, has been shameful.
Late last year a simple recommendation, approved by Pope Francis, went to this dicastery in regard to a small change of procedure in the context of care for victims/survivors. In January I learned the change was refused. At the same time a request for co-operation on a fundamental issue of Commission work in regard to safeguarding was also refused. While I hope the Commission will succeed in overcoming this resistance, for me it is the last straw.
Cardinal Sean O’Malley has invited me to continue to be part of training projects including those for the Curia and new bishops and I am happy to accept. This will be the area on which I will now concentrate.
I wish my colleagues on the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors the very best for the future.
Marie Collins
1st March 2017
I expanded on the above statement in a longer piece on my resignation. This article appeared in the National Catholic Reporter on 1st March 2017 "Survivor explains decision to leave Vatican's abuse commission" also below
The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors has had difficulties to overcome in the three years of its being in place. Obviously I intend to respect the confidentiality of my former colleagues and the work they are doing in the Commission but some of the main stumbling blocks which I can mention were included by members giving testimony to the Royal Commission in Australia last week, these involve: lack of resources, inadequate structures around support staff, slowness of forward movement and cultural resistance. The most significant problem has been the latter, reluctance of some members of the Vatican Curia to implement the recommendations of the Commission despite their approval by the Pope. Ms Kathleen McCormack, the Australian member summed up the struggles and emphasised the need to keep hope “like water on a rock. We've just got to keep at it”.
I have come to the point where I can no longer be sustained by hope. As a survivor I have watched events unfold with dismay. During our first year we had to go forward without an office or staff. Finding a method by which the Commission could enter into dialogue with Vatican dicasteries was difficult for a very prolonged period. This was eventually overcome in 2016 when liaison persons for each Vatican department were appointed to be available to interact with the Commission but there was a long delay in this very important area of communication and co-operation.
The Commission’s recommendation for a Tribunal to be put in place whereby negligent bishops could be held accountable was approved by the Pope and announced in June 2015. Yet is was found by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as Baroness Sheila Hollins stated to the Royal Commission, to have unspecified “legal” difficulties, and so was never implemented.
Pope Frances in his moto propo “As a Loving Mother” last year followed up with another accountability initiative. This would not only cover negligent bishops but religious superiors. It was to come into effect on 5th September 2016 but it is impossible to know if it has actually begun work or not.
The Safeguarding Guidelines template developed by the Commission, intended to be used by bishops conferences around the world as a basis for drawing up their own policy documents has not yet been disseminated. The dicastery which has the responsibility for reviewing existing bishops’ conference policy documents and which has its own template is refusing to co-operate with the Commission on the combining of the work. In his testimony to the Royal Commission Mr Bill Kilgallon from New Zealand, Chair of the Guidelines working group used the analogy of government to understand how this sort of resistance can come about, he said “how jealously government departments guard their own domain and there can be some push-back about taking advice from others”
The reluctance of some in the Vatican curia to implement recommendations or co-operate with the work of a commission, when the purpose is to improve the safety of children and vulnerable adults around the world is unacceptable. Is this reluctances driven by internal politics, fear of change, clericalism which instils a belief that “they know best” or a closed mind which sees abuse as an inconvenience or a clinging to old institutional attitudes?. I do not know the answer but it is devastating in 2017 to see that these men still can put other concerns before the safety of children and vulnerable adults.
The last straw for me, on top of the refusal to co-operate on the Safeguarding Guidelines, has been the refusal, by this same dicastery, to implement one of the simplest recommendation the Commission has put forward to date. Last year the Holy Father at our request, instructed that all departments in the Vatican ensure correspondence from victims/survivors receive a response. Last month I learned in a letter from this particular dicastery that they are refusing to do so. I find it impossible to listen to public statements about the deep concern in the Church for the care of those whose lives have been blighted by abuse, yet watch as privately a congregation in the Vatican refuses to even acknowledge one of their letters! It is a reflection of how this whole abuse crisis in the Church has been handled: with fine words in public and contrary actions behind closed doors.
When I accepted my appointment to the Commission in 2014 I said publicly that if I found what was happening behind closed doors was in conflict with what was being said to the public I would not remain. This point has come, I feel I have no choice but to resign if I am to retain my integrity.
I know my former colleagues on the Commission will forge on and I hope in time succeed in overcoming the difficulties and bring the real change that is needed. There is still a survivor member in the group though on leave of absence. I do not know if when his term of office ends another survivor will be brought on board. I do hope in whatever way things go forward that a survivor voice will be included.
In the past three years I have never had the opportunity to sit and talk to the Pope but if I had I would ask him three things: 1. Give the Commission an adequate, independent budget to do their work without having each item of expenditure go through the internal Vatican approval process. 2. Give the Commission the responsibility and the power to oversee implementation of the recommendations when they are approved. No matter how much work is put into the recommendations given to the Holy Father and no matter how much he supports them they must be properly implemented to have any effect. 3. Remove the restriction on the recruitment of professional staff from outside the Vatican.
Despite everything I have said I do believe there is value in the Commission continuing its work. The members are sincerely putting every effort into very important projects with the intention of moving things forward. The Pope, despite recent disappointing news on the reduction of sanction on convicted perpetrators, I believe does at heart understand the horror of abuse and the need for those who would hurt minors to be stopped. Although I do not agree with them, as far as I am aware none of his actions have put a perpetrator back into a position where children would be at risk, if they did I would have a very different view. Those who appeal to his commitment to mercy in these cases do a disservice to all, including the man himself, who I feel does not appreciate how his actions of clemency undermines everything else he does in this area including supporting the work of the Commission.
I wish my former colleagues well as they go forward. The issue of improving safety of children and vulnerable adults is so important it has to continue no matter the stumbling blocks in its’ path.
I have come to the point where I can no longer be sustained by hope. As a survivor I have watched events unfold with dismay. During our first year we had to go forward without an office or staff. Finding a method by which the Commission could enter into dialogue with Vatican dicasteries was difficult for a very prolonged period. This was eventually overcome in 2016 when liaison persons for each Vatican department were appointed to be available to interact with the Commission but there was a long delay in this very important area of communication and co-operation.
The Commission’s recommendation for a Tribunal to be put in place whereby negligent bishops could be held accountable was approved by the Pope and announced in June 2015. Yet is was found by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as Baroness Sheila Hollins stated to the Royal Commission, to have unspecified “legal” difficulties, and so was never implemented.
Pope Frances in his moto propo “As a Loving Mother” last year followed up with another accountability initiative. This would not only cover negligent bishops but religious superiors. It was to come into effect on 5th September 2016 but it is impossible to know if it has actually begun work or not.
The Safeguarding Guidelines template developed by the Commission, intended to be used by bishops conferences around the world as a basis for drawing up their own policy documents has not yet been disseminated. The dicastery which has the responsibility for reviewing existing bishops’ conference policy documents and which has its own template is refusing to co-operate with the Commission on the combining of the work. In his testimony to the Royal Commission Mr Bill Kilgallon from New Zealand, Chair of the Guidelines working group used the analogy of government to understand how this sort of resistance can come about, he said “how jealously government departments guard their own domain and there can be some push-back about taking advice from others”
The reluctance of some in the Vatican curia to implement recommendations or co-operate with the work of a commission, when the purpose is to improve the safety of children and vulnerable adults around the world is unacceptable. Is this reluctances driven by internal politics, fear of change, clericalism which instils a belief that “they know best” or a closed mind which sees abuse as an inconvenience or a clinging to old institutional attitudes?. I do not know the answer but it is devastating in 2017 to see that these men still can put other concerns before the safety of children and vulnerable adults.
The last straw for me, on top of the refusal to co-operate on the Safeguarding Guidelines, has been the refusal, by this same dicastery, to implement one of the simplest recommendation the Commission has put forward to date. Last year the Holy Father at our request, instructed that all departments in the Vatican ensure correspondence from victims/survivors receive a response. Last month I learned in a letter from this particular dicastery that they are refusing to do so. I find it impossible to listen to public statements about the deep concern in the Church for the care of those whose lives have been blighted by abuse, yet watch as privately a congregation in the Vatican refuses to even acknowledge one of their letters! It is a reflection of how this whole abuse crisis in the Church has been handled: with fine words in public and contrary actions behind closed doors.
When I accepted my appointment to the Commission in 2014 I said publicly that if I found what was happening behind closed doors was in conflict with what was being said to the public I would not remain. This point has come, I feel I have no choice but to resign if I am to retain my integrity.
I know my former colleagues on the Commission will forge on and I hope in time succeed in overcoming the difficulties and bring the real change that is needed. There is still a survivor member in the group though on leave of absence. I do not know if when his term of office ends another survivor will be brought on board. I do hope in whatever way things go forward that a survivor voice will be included.
In the past three years I have never had the opportunity to sit and talk to the Pope but if I had I would ask him three things: 1. Give the Commission an adequate, independent budget to do their work without having each item of expenditure go through the internal Vatican approval process. 2. Give the Commission the responsibility and the power to oversee implementation of the recommendations when they are approved. No matter how much work is put into the recommendations given to the Holy Father and no matter how much he supports them they must be properly implemented to have any effect. 3. Remove the restriction on the recruitment of professional staff from outside the Vatican.
Despite everything I have said I do believe there is value in the Commission continuing its work. The members are sincerely putting every effort into very important projects with the intention of moving things forward. The Pope, despite recent disappointing news on the reduction of sanction on convicted perpetrators, I believe does at heart understand the horror of abuse and the need for those who would hurt minors to be stopped. Although I do not agree with them, as far as I am aware none of his actions have put a perpetrator back into a position where children would be at risk, if they did I would have a very different view. Those who appeal to his commitment to mercy in these cases do a disservice to all, including the man himself, who I feel does not appreciate how his actions of clemency undermines everything else he does in this area including supporting the work of the Commission.
I wish my former colleagues well as they go forward. The issue of improving safety of children and vulnerable adults is so important it has to continue no matter the stumbling blocks in its’ path.
1st March 2017 Press Release from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors
On Monday, February 13, 2017, Mrs. Marie Collins, a Member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors [PCPM] advised Cardinal Sean O’Malley, President of the PCPM, of her intent to resign from the Commission effective March 1, 2017.
Mrs. Collins, a Member of the Pontifical Commission since its inception in 2014 is a survivor of clerical abuse, and consistently and tirelessly championed for the voices of the victims/survivors to be heard, and for the healing of victims/survivors to be a priority of the Church. In discussing with the Cardinal, and in her resignation letter to the Holy Father, Mrs. Collins cited her frustration at the lack of cooperation with the Commission by other offices in the Roman Curia.
Mrs. Collins accepted an invitation from Cardinal O’Malley to continue to work with the Commission in an educational role in recognition of her exceptional teaching skills and impact of her testimony as a survivor.
The Holy Father accepted Mrs. Collins resignation with deep appreciation for her work on behalf of the victims/survivors of clergy abuse.
The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors was established by Pope Francis in March of 2014. The Chirograph of His Holiness Pope Francis states specifically, “The Commission’s specific task is to propose to me the most opportune initiatives for protecting minors and vulnerable adults, in order that we may do everything possible to ensure that crimes such as those which have occurred are no longer repeated in the Church. The Commission is to promote local responsibility in the particular Churches, uniting their efforts to those of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for the protection of all children and vulnerable adults.”
Contacts:
[email protected]
www.protectionofminors.va
Statement from PCPM President, Cardinal Seán Patrick O’Malley, OFM Cap.
“On behalf of the Members of the Commission I have expressed to Marie Collins our most sincere thanks for the extraordinary contributions she has made as a founding member of the Commission. We will certainly listen carefully to all that Marie wishes to share with us about her concerns and we will greatly miss her important contributions as a member of the Commission. As the Commission gathers for the plenary meeting next month we will have an opportunity to discuss these matters. With the members of the Commission I am deeply grateful for Marie’s willingness to continue to work with us in the education of church leaders, including the upcoming programs for new bishops and for the dicasteries of the Holy See. Our prayers will remain with Marie and with all victims and survivors of sexual abuse.”
============================================================================================================
“On behalf of the Members of the Commission I have expressed to Marie Collins our most sincere thanks for the extraordinary contributions she has made as a founding member of the Commission. We will certainly listen carefully to all that Marie wishes to share with us about her concerns and we will greatly miss her important contributions as a member of the Commission. As the Commission gathers for the plenary meeting next month we will have an opportunity to discuss these matters. With the members of the Commission I am deeply grateful for Marie’s willingness to continue to work with us in the education of church leaders, including the upcoming programs for new bishops and for the dicasteries of the Holy See. Our prayers will remain with Marie and with all victims and survivors of sexual abuse.”
============================================================================================================