CRINmail 78
Special edition - The Holy See and sexual abuse

In this issue:

View this CRINmail in your browser. 

“This room has never been so packed,” said the Committee on the Rights of the Child as it began the Holy See’s review yesterday. More chairs were brought in but it was still standing room only, as both the room temperature and dialogue between the Holy See and the Committee heated up throughout the day. 

The world’s media was there as the Holy See was grilled by the Committee on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. The New York Times, the BBC, Al Jazeera and many more covered the story. CRIN tweeted live from Geneva with #HolySeeConfess being inundated with tweets and followers both present at the review and around the world. 

The Committee’s review of the Holy See was on its adherence to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols that the State has ratified (sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; children and armed conflict). So although child sexual abuse was central, the review did cover other children’s rights issues.

As covered in Wednesday’s CRINmail – the week in children’s rights – CRIN launched a new report mapping the scale of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church across the world, as well as a campaign to end sexual violence in religious institutions. This special edition Violence CRINmail gives a snapshot of the Committee’s review of the Holy See yesterday. 

We hope you enjoy reading. 

The CRIN team 

Back to top

Does the Holy See only have to respect the rights of 36 children?

The difference between the Holy See and the Vatican City State is a very important one in international law. It is the Holy See that is a UN State and has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, not the Vatican. This means it was the Holy See under review by the Committee on the Rights of the Child - a point of much confusion for everyone in the room! 

The Holy See has a religious legal system based on canon law, which is the body of officially established rules governing the faith and practices of the Catholic Church. Since the Holy See is a UN Observer State, this means that unlike other religions the Catholic Church has representation at the UN and obligations under international law. For instance, the Holy See has voluntarily ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990 - the year the treaty entered into force.  

Despite declaring that canon law crosses international borders and governs Catholics around the world, the Holy See, both in its written replies to the Committee in December and yesterday in the review, claimed that it does not have jurisdiction over priests residing outside the territory of the Holy See and can only be responsible for the protection of children from violence within its borders. There are only 36 children in the Holy See’s territory. In comparsion, the Committee noted yesterday that 73 million children worldwide have been sexually abused in Catholic institutions. 

Again and again, the Holy See delegates argued this when pressed by the Committee to give data on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church around the world and details on what the Holy See is doing about it.

On the issue of the “geographical cure” - moving abusing priests from one diocese, or even country to another, the Holy See said “there is an obligation for every diocese to report offenders to each other.” No mention was made of any policy to report to local law enforcement.

The Committee’s questions on how much the Holy See can, and does control, when it comes to child sexual abuse in the Church included:

• How much influence does the Holy See have over Catholic institutions such as schools, orphanages and health facilities?
• What about cooperation with local legal authorities? What about remedies for victims and reparation schemes?
• Is there any cooperation and coordination with law enforcement?
• Are you intending to establish an independent review mechanism for children who have been abused in Catholic institutions?
• Is there a central database about action taken against perpetrators and compensation paid to victims?

 On this issue of jurisdiction, the Committee stressed:

“The Holy See has a political and moral obligation over all of the Catholic Church. There is a problem with the ‘dual nature’ of the Holy See and the Vatican City State which makes it hard for outsiders to understand the State Party’s laws. Every country’s legal system needs to be reviewed once it ratifies the Convention on the Rights of the Child- like with any other international legal treaty. There are no exceptions to this rule and so it applies to the Holy See as well.”

Yet the Holy See’s responses included:

• The Holy See has “a free and voluntary kind of jurisdiction” beyond the territory of the Vatican City State. Yet it said this “cannot be enforced”.
• “Priests are not functionaries of the Holy See and fall under the jurisdiction of their own country”.
• The jurisdiction of the Holy See is “spiritual” and does not override national laws. It only facilities the work of local dioceses and Catholic institutions.

This issue of jurisdiction will not be resolved quickly….

Back to top

The UN v The Holy See

Committee Members did probe the Holy See during the State’s review yesterday, asking some very direct questions around exactly what it is doing to prevent child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and to ensure justice and compensation for victims. 

The tone was set by Committee Chairperson Kristen Sandberg when, during the Holy See’s first round of replies, she warned that they “were trying to rush through the questions rather quickly” and reminded the delegates that the Committee will continue to ask follow up questions and press for answers.

The review continued as a ballet-cum-boxing match, with the Committee in one corner asking specific questions, and looking for specific detail on what the Holy See knows about child sexual abuse in the Church, what has been done about it and what it plans to do. And on the other, the Holy See delegates gracefully side stepping the issues.

One tactic employed by the delegates was to rely on the Holy See’s change in attitude over recent years. They relied on comments by recent popes, along with guidelines launched in 2011 as evidence of this shift in attitude - one they say has moved from silence to transparency. Yet despite direct questions from the Committee asking them for specific proof that these quotes and policies are more than just words, nothing specific was put forward.

Two exchanges provide examples of this:

• In the morning session, the Committee asked the Holy See: “Can you give us statistics which illuminate us to this change of attitude since 2011? How many clergy have been brought to national authorities? How many offenders have been prosecuted?”

The Holy See simply stated that no statistics on how cases develop are available externally, despite admitting “that does not mean it should be this way. It is in the public interest to know the outcomes of the procedures.”

• In the afternoon the Committee asked: “What about the cover-ups? What is the scope of this problem? We know that cases have been registered and recorded, so why not make a greater effort to be transparent and publish data on cases? Can you give us all the data you have on sexual abuse cases?

The State’s reply was simple: “At this point in time we will take your request seriously but we don’t have an answer for you right now”.

This is despite the Committee’s very clear questions on this that the Holy See received in July last year (see page 11 of the List of Issues). The Committee said that “openness instead of sweeping under the carpet is what is needed” and told the Holy See that despite its promises of a change in attitude “it seems your procedures are not transparent”.

Frustration in the room was audible, by both Committee Members and victims - some who have travelled from as far as the US and Mexico.

Back to top

Holy See says Church 'educates and rehabilitates' abusing priests

The Holy See professed that education and rehabilitation are the key to protecting children from sexual abuse in the Catholic Church during yesterday’s UN review.

CRIN believes that children have all human rights, not because they are “the future” or “the adults of tomorrow” but because they are human beings today. The promotion of children as rights holders and education on the Convention on the Rights of the Child are vital to establishing societies where children are viewed and treated with respect, dignity and equality.

However, the Holy See’s focus on education and rehabilitation of abusing priests avoids the rights of victims, actively obstructs local law enforcement and allows priests to remain working with children.

 In this vein, the Holy See told the Committee that it believes “grooming” is very hard to legislate against, and instead is a matter of changing the behaviour of priests who commit crimes against children. The Committee challenged the Holy See on this, by reinforcing the fact that child sexual abuse is a crime and should be treated as such.  

Back to top

The Holy See and civil society

The Committee was interested to know whether and how the Holy See works with civil society and children - both in the compilation of their state report to the Committee and in tackling child sexual abuse. This was of great interest to many in the room, and the Committee’s direct questions on this issue were met with claps from observers.

When initially asked if they had, at any point, directly collaborated with civil society or children during the assembling of their report, the answer given by the Holy See was relatively evasive.  Pressed further and the answer finally became a no - the vast wealth of information on the issue which NGOs and victims already have was not utilised in any way by the Holy See.  The delegation did seem to suggest that they had consulted Catholic NGOs, but the degree to which this was done remained unclear.  

However, like all UN human rights treaty bodies, the Committee on the Rights of the Child accepts alternative reports from civil society, and a number of compelling accounts were submitted for the Holy See’s review. You can find them on the Committee’s 65th session page.

The Holy See made some positive remarks towards the end about engaging with civil society - "A dialogue with civil society is a good idea. Maybe it will take place in the future."

Back to top

Other children’s rights issues covered

On violence against children generally, the Committee pressed the Holy See on its responsibility in the Magdalen laundries scandal in Ireland - institutions where women and girls deemed “fallen women” were forced into prison-like centres for “rehabilitation”. The women and girls faced daily violations of their rights, including physical, sexual and emotional abuse and child labour. The Holy See delegation denied all responsibility for the abuse scandal, and told the Committee that the Irish State is taking full responsibility.

The Committee also questioned the Holy See on the use of corporal punishment in Catholic institutions around the world, and asked if they are intending to ban physical punishment of children in Catholic institutions. The Committee reminded the delegation later in the session that they had not yet answered the question, and stressed “corporal punishment should be prohibited and it is not acceptable that it is used in Catholic institutions” and that it is not acceptable in family situations and the Holy See should communicate this across the Catholic community. To this the delegation said: “This is a good proposal and we will take it back to our government”.

The Holy See’s stance on abortion was also a hot topic, with the Committee reminding the delegation of various cases around the world of young women and girls who had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church (the highest penalty under canon law) for having an abortion. This included the case of a girl who had been raped by her father where the girl and the doctor who performed the abortion were excommunicated, whereas nothing happened to the rapist. The Holy See continued to profess that it gives “priority to life”.

The rights of women and girls to reproductive services and education also came up, but the Holy See managed to avoid answering the Committee’s questions on this directly.

Same-sex relationships and single parents were alluded to, with the Committee asking the Holy See strong questions on whether it will review its restrictive and discriminatory definition of the family. The Holy See stated that they define the family as only comprising of a mother, father and their children. On the use of discriminatory term “out of wedlock”, the Holy See said that it is reviewing its use of it but that it is not the Holy See’s “fault that children are born out of wedlock”.

Back to top

Coming up at the Committee

While the Holy See’s review has been the feature of the Committee’s 65thsession, gaining the attention of international media, other States are also up for review during the session. Congo and Yemen reviews took place earlier in the week, and Portugal, Germany and the Russian Federation will take place next week. We will give a full round up of the Committee’s 65th session in future CRINmails. 

Back to top