Did the Vatican tell Irish bishops to cover up abuse?
Some commentators believe the letter is proof that the Vatican should accept more responsibility for the cover up of abuse allegations that happened in Ireland, and that paper trail now points to the need for a fuller investigation of the role of Pope John Paul II. John Paul is to be beatified by his successor in May. John Paul's defenders say his path to sainthood will be Still others use the term "smoking gun" to describe the significance of the letter's contents.
The details of the letter were made public in an RTE documentary broadcast this week (watch ), which also included excerpts from the diary of an Irish bishop describing the letter as a Vatican instruction to conceal allegations of abuse.
The 1997 letter was first noted by the Murphy Report in its analysis of a culture of concealment within the Irish Catholic Church (, reproduced below the line.)
The Vatican expert John Allen : the letter, he says, "is certainly a public relations embarrassment. As a "smoking gun" proving a Vatican-orchestrated cover-up, however, the letter may fall short'. In coming to that assessment, he makes a clear distinction between reporting abuse and a policy of mandatory reporting. At no point in this letter are Irish bishops instructed to conceal abuse allegations. He also notes that "the 1997 letter was written before the late Pope John Paul II put Ratzinger in charge of the Vatican's response to the sexual abuse crisis in 2001, a decision which Vatican-watchers regarded as a defeat for the more ambivalent line associated with Castrillón Hoyos."
The following is the section of dealing with the 1997 letter:
Status of the Framework Document
7.11 The Framework Document was launched in January 1996 by the Irish
Bishops‟ Conference and the Conference of Religious of Ireland. Meetings
were held with priests and details of the document were circulated.
7.12 Training days took place during 1996. Monsignor Dolan told the
Commission: "The personnel involved were at this time trying to learn about
child sexual abuse and the process of response; at the same time, they were
at the heart of responding to emerging complaints".
7.13 Monsignor Dolan went on to say that understanding behind the
Framework Document, was that each diocese or religious institute would
enact its own particular protocol for dealing with complaints. This in fact
never took place because of the response of Rome to the Framework
Document. According to Monsignor Stenson, Rome had reservations about
its policy of reporting to the civil authorities. The basis of the reservation was
that the making of a report put the reputation and good name of a priest at
risk. Monsignor Dolan told the Commission that the Congregation for the
Clergy in Rome had studied the document in detail and emphasised to the
Irish bishops that it must conform to the canonical norms in force. The
congregation indicated that "the text contains procedures and dispositions
which are contrary to canonical discipline. In particular ‗mandatory reporting'
gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature".
Monsignor Dolan said that the congregation regarded the document as
"merely a study document".
7.14 Monsignor Dolan‟s view was that this placed the bishops in an
invidious position because, if they did seek to operate the Framework
Document, then any priest against whom disciplinary or penal measures were
taken had a right of appeal to Rome and was most likely to succeed. The
bishops, on the other hand, were not in a position to strengthen the
Framework Document by enacting it into law. It was his view that the only
way a bishop could properly proceed canonically was with the accused
priest‟s co-operation.
Comment number 1.
At 19th Jan 2011, allybalder wrote:The RTE prog on the letter which wasn't burnt is here
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Jan 2011, allybalder wrote:Will
A brilliant example of a rhetorical question!
defn
A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 20th Jan 2011, nobledeebee wrote:Its a bit like, did Hitler order the holocaust? Hard to find the written evidence, but is he responsible......you betcha!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 20th Jan 2011, Will_Crawley wrote:allybalder, there is nothing rhetorical about this question. Do a google search: it is the question every news organisation in the world is now asking as a consequence of this published letter.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 20th Jan 2011, Dave wrote:allybalder,
Thanks for the link, didn't seem to do the normal geolocation block so was able to view it.
Interesting programme which didn't seem to leave any room for misreading or misunderstanding as to the intentions of the Vatican to conceal and protect it's own 'sons' at the expense of its flocks sons and to obfuscate anything which may shine a light into the criminality which may make them look bad.
It threw a few bones to Benny though not enough to mitigate his responsibility for the scandal.
A point for the vatican, as it seems to be continually misread or misunderstood, maybe it should
a) try writing or saying what it means rather than writing or saying something completely different or
b) learn to write and speak in a way that does not leave things open to several interpretations as if they were trying to say several things for different occasions (one of which might be nothing)
although this would appear to be an example of the former.
Not sure if this is the smoking gun, more another nail.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 20th Jan 2011, mccamleyc wrote:The programme didn't implicate Ratzinger at all as far as I could see. It could have been a good programme with a less whingy presenter. Also might have been useful to actually have quoted the letter instead of just a bit of it. Allen's interpretation seems to be the right one, that it was important that correct procedure be applied or the accused would get off on a technicality.
By the by, there is still no mandatory reporting in Irish law, and groups like Rape Crisis Centre and ISPCC don't support it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 20th Jan 2011, Dave wrote:Mcc,
"The programme didn't implicate Ratzinger at all as far as I could see."
No it implicated the Vatican which demolishes the argument (used in the US) that the vatican has no direct role in policy of different countries. Who is the head of the Vatican, Ratzinger. You are the ones who tell us that he is the head of the eternal church, let him stand up to it. Why not put him in a court of law.
Or would you prefer to wave your hand at criticism like you have always done while kids have been abused.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 20th Jan 2011, Dave wrote:Mcc,
"By the by, there is still no mandatory reporting in Irish law, and groups like Rape Crisis Centre and ISPCC don't support it."
Thats great, so the catholic church can just get on with it till someone else decides its a good idea, I thought you were meant to be the high ground not the I'll get away with it as long as I can mob.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 20th Jan 2011, romejellybeen wrote:MCC
When the victims of Maciel went to Ratzinger with their lawyers in the 90's he told them that his hands were tied because of the statute of limitations.
They returned in 1999 with an accusation which didnt carry a statute of limitations - Maciel had put the victims under the seal of confession, this, as you know, carries the penalty of immediate excommunication - he stalled for two years, then imposed a statute of limitations on that too.
Any explanation?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 20th Jan 2011, romejellybeen wrote:Did the Vatican cover up, William?
Here is a letter from the Head of the Congregation for the Clergy in 1984. (It is the actual letter.) On page two you will note that it states quite clearly that "on no account" are the priests records to be given to the police, lawyers or judges. I stated months ago on here that hundreds of these letters exist. It would appear that they are now starting to surface, the one from Ireland and this one from Arizona.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 20th Jan 2011, allybalder wrote:Did the Vatican tell Irish bishops to cover up abuse?
obvious answer - yes yes yes - so a rhetorical Q
If there was any international justice the Vatican would be tried and if convicted they have to contribute massively to a compensation fund for victims
and wouldn't it be great to see the Irish Church break from Rome
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 21st Jan 2011, kierantherock wrote:I must say I love these shots in the dark Will . The joy of journalism never let the truth get in the way of a good story. The fact is we have seen and will see many letters, suggestions, writs or articles concerning cover ups or whitewash in many religions. The Muslim the Protestant, the Arab so why should I or we really pay heed or care . Next week it will be something else . I find your exposures unsurprising and uninteresting . It would be of more interest to challenge the way we think about reactions and conflict ion created by feeble attacks on a specific religion like you do . The focus of your blogs is unbalanced and assume we are all Christian
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 21st Jan 2011, Dagsannr wrote:Kierantherock,
This blog is mostly about religion and ethics as a whole, but it's also heavily focused on issues concerning Northern Ireland, so it's perfectly acceptable to concentrate on issues like this.
I'm not a Catholic, and aside from the abhorance of the horrendous abuse inflicted by some priests on children, this story to me is just another example of a powerful organisation protecting their own. The fact that it should know better is a small aside.
However, I accept that Will's area of interest includes this, so I expect to see that kind of focus on this blog and it's good people are taking the effort to keep this story alive.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 21st Jan 2011, Will_Crawley wrote:Kierantherock, that's a bizarre comment. These are not MY "exposures"; this is a story that has now gone around the world emanating from an RTE documentary. I cover the tory here because this blog has a particular interest in religion and ethics stories.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 21st Jan 2011, Ryan_ wrote:Kieran, how odd your thought patterns are. How exactly are these shots in the dark? This an organisation that fails to put itself up to public scrutiny , fails to account for its actions and arrogantly dismisses any responsability for its astonishingly poor handling of the mess its created.
If this was a public body, like the teaching profession, they would be held to account,rooted out from their posts, arrested .Your dismissal of this, the fact you say you don't care- then why bother typing? At the very least, the insidious nature of all of this challenges how people can trust such an organisation.
Until an organisation can be brought under the jurisdiction of the law, it is up to people to highlight and demand justice. Just because the Catholic Church doesn't want to be held up to public scrutiny and held to account , does that mean we should just lie down and accept its behaviour?
You wouldn't accept a car maker selling faulty cars that cause its passengers harm- even if you didn't buy into that brand you would expect them to be held to account as to why they didn't put any safety measures in place to correct the fault when it was discovered. You'd be rather peeved if they tried to just cover it up, burn the evidence and claim nothing was wrong. For many, it shows the Catholic Church is not fit for purpose and should be exposed at every opportunity for the dangers the weakest elements of its organisation pose to the general public
In mainland Britan you would expect issues to be raised that encompass other faiths because those faiths are represented in the population. Any action or behaviour that engenders harm, whether its radical Muslim clerics preaching hate towards non muslims, or whether its Catholic Priests abusing their flock it should continue to be exposed until it is remedied
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 22nd Jan 2011, Eunice wrote:Ryan: well said.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)