Oh, and here's a take on those recommendations from a Catholic who's been incensed about the abuse scandal since Boston (and also lived through it himself since he's in Minneapolis-St. Paul):
16.6: The bishop of each Catholic Church diocese in Australia should ensure that parish priests are not the employers of principals and teachers in Catholic schools.
Wise. Kinda fits in with my father's
argument here that bishops (and clergy in general) need to divest their responsibility for everything possible other than "preaching the Gospel"
(I'm jealous;
Crisis published Dad's piece but rejected mine, because mine named names and they weren't quite up for that.)
Somebody outside day-to-day operations should have authority to enforce doctrinal issues in a school, but that person need not be a cleric and, even if a cleric, that cleric need not be the employer.
LIKELIHOOD OF HAPPENING: fair.
16.7: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should conduct a national review of the governance and management structures of dioceses and parishes, including in relation to issues of transparency, accountability, consultation and the participation of lay men and women. This review should draw from the approaches to governance of Catholic health, community services and education agencies.
A reasonable but essentially toothless recommendation, because, between Cardinal Pell and Bishop Wilson, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference seems to have demonstrated its own depraved indifference to the plight of victims.
LIKELIHOOD OF HAPPENING: high, but the odds are even higher the results make a lot of noise and severely inconvenience thousands of innocent priests and laypeople without actually doing anything to prevent abuse
16.8: In the interests of child safety and improved institutional responses to child sexual abuse, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to:
a. publish criteria for the selection of bishops, including relating to the promotion of child safety
Not really sure what this means, tbh.
b. establish a transparent process for appointing bishops which includes the direct participation of lay people.
Well now they're stealing right out from my unpublished article.
St. Ambrose of Milan was elected bishop the way most bishops were elected at the time: the people acclaimed him, the priests of Milan agreed and elected him, the local bishops approved and consecrated him, and the Pope approved and confirmed him. (Ambrose was not even
baptized at the time; he was a catechumen.)
Election by acclamation is probably impractical in the current Church, because the structure of the Church is so radically different than it was in the patristic era. (This is, in itself, arguably a problem.)
But the idea that the Pope
unilaterally appoints bishops, only taking
advice from others, would have surprised any Catholic before about the 17th Century. And that
all those advisers would be clergy? All of whose advice is secret? This would surely stun the Church Fathers. Heck, the Eastern Particular Churches, not to mention the Eastern Orthodox Churches, give us major side-eye about this
even today.
Decentralization of episcopal ordinations seems essential.
LIKELIHOOD: This is in the mainstream conversation to an extent that was unimaginable even a few weeks ago. But it's still at the far edge of the Catholic Overton window, and the only person who can do a thing about it is Pope Francis -- who has
somehow done an even worse job so far on the abuse scandal than Pope St. John Paul II? This may need to wait for another Pope, one who is unusually capable of looking beyond the past century or two for lessons on Church governance.
16.9: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend the 1983 Code of Canon Law to create a new canon or series of canons specifically relating to child sexual abuse, as follows:
a. All delicts relating to child sexual abuse should be articulated as canonical crimes against the child, not as moral failings or as breaches of the ‘special obligation’ of clerics and religious to observe celibacy.
I take this to be Australia calling for a revision of
Canon 1395, Section 2, essentially moving from Title V (Delicts Against Special Obligations) into Title VI (Delicts Against Human Life). I don't see what practical difference this would make, but perhaps the symbolism alone would be useful in teaching bishops to
enforce the law,
especially[/u] in these cases. But these are the same bishops who flout essentially any provision of canon law, from liturgical abuse on down, that they don't find suitable.
(Also, if I were Pope, I'd eliminate Title VI altogether, so Canon 1395 would have to move into its own special title. Canon 1397 seems redundant, and Canon 1398 is both actively unhelpful and has already been -- wisely -- gutted by Pope Francis through other channels. Bit I digress.)
LIKELIHOOD: Since the bishops are strongly inclined to engage in CYA by implementing as many symbolic measures as possible, I rate the possibility of this one happening as high, but it'll take years to decades to get Rome to act.
b. All delicts relating to child sexual abuse should apply to any person holding a ‘dignity, office or responsibility in the Church’ regardless of whether they are ordained or not ordained.
This seems like a good call! I was genuinely surprised to realize this wasn't the case -- I've read the delict before, but it never clicked -- and I'll bet you there are not a few people in the Vatican who would be equally surprised (see my complaint above about bishops flouting the law).
c. In relation to the acquisition, possession, or distribution of pornographic images, the delict (currently contained in Article 6 §2 1° of the revised 2010 norms attached to the motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela) should be amended to refer to minors under the age of 18, not minors under the age of 14.
I had to poke around a bit on this to see what other "coverage" the code has for these crimes (
SST's main purpose isn't to declare crimes but to reserve judgment of them to the Holy Office / CDF, which proved effective under Benedict but seemingly less so under Francis).
Anyway, yes, I think this is a wise amendment.
LIKELIHOOD: modest. On its face, it's an easy, cost-free, CYA amendment to canon law. But, in truth, it would push
a lot of cases to Rome, cases that dioceses seem to very
strongly prefer to handle locally, involving police only if necessary. On the other hand, it would only push cases to Rome if bishops showed any interest in following the law, so...
16.10: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law so that the pontifical secret does not apply to any aspect of allegations or canonical disciplinary processes relating to child sexual abuse.
Nobody seems to disagree with this except for the bishops it would make accountable.
LIKELIHOOD OF HAPPENING: slim to none
16.11: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law to ensure that the ‘pastoral approach’ is not an essential precondition to the commencement of canonical action relating to child sexual abuse.
Yes. True of other delicts as well. I mean, I always thought it obvious that,
by the nature of the crime, you cannot "restore justice" after sex abuse with "fraternal correction"... but the bishops have amply demonstrated that it is
not at all obvious to them.
So, sure, call this out for them.
LIKELIHOOD: some idiot's going to say that you can't reform this because of Matt 18:15, and that's an incredibly tendentious reading, but as anyone who's tried to push legislation through a multi-layered committee knows, all it takes is one idiot to make it impossible to pass.
Oh, the canon Australia is referring to is -- I'm pretty sure --
Canon 1341.
16.12: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law to remove the time limit (prescription) for commencement of canonical actions relating to child sexual abuse. This amendment should apply retrospectively.
Wise. I understand why we have statutes of limitations on crimes -- same reason any polity has statutes of limitations, really -- but the past decade has shown that the good the limitations do is outweighed by the huge evil of bishops trying to run out the statute of limitations for their priests. Time to go.
LIKELIHOOD: meh.
16.13: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend the ‘imputability’ test in canon law so that a diagnosis of paedophilia is not relevant to the prosecution of or penalty for a canonical offence relating to child sexual abuse.
First time I have reservations. Canon 1321 basically says, "You can only be held responsible for crimes you committed while of sound mind." Every just code of laws has this. In America, it's the insanity defense. I don't think you can strip that out and still have a just law.
What you need, in order to prevent the abuse of the Church's insanity defense ("I'm a diagnosed pedophile, so my criminal pedophilia isn't my responsibility!") is good judges who are working from good standards who can apply those standards consistently and correctly to cases. Those standards come from the journals of canon law and precedent. Maybe you could legislate them here, but, like I said, I have reservations.
I am not a canon lawyer, so maybe this would be fine, but my sense is no. I get what Australia's trying to do here, though, and it's a good move.
LIKELIHOOD: pretty low, if my concerns are right.
16.14: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law to give effect to Recommendations 16.55 and 16.56.
Guess we'll get there when we get there.
16.15: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Catholic Religious Australia, in consultation with the Holy See, should consider establishing an Australian tribunal for trying canonical disciplinary cases against clergy, whose decisions could be appealed to the Apostolic Signatura in the usual way.
Sucks that they even need authorization from the Holy See for this, but sure, good plan.
16.16: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to introduce measures to ensure that Vatican Congregations and canonical appeal courts always publish decisions in disciplinary matters relating to child sexual abuse, and provide written reasons for their decisions. Publication should occur in a timely manner. In some cases it may be appropriate to suppress information that might lead to the identification of a victim.
Excellent.
16.17: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law to remove the requirement to destroy documents relating to canonical criminal cases in matters of morals, where the accused cleric has died or ten years have elapsed from the condemnatory sentence. In order to allow for delayed disclosure of abuse by victims and to take account of the limitation periods for civil actions for child sexual abuse, the minimum requirement for retention of records in the secret archives should be at least 45 years.
Capital idea.