France: The Sauvé Report or the Abuse of the Abuse (2)

The first article examined the numbers put forward by CIASE, to question them. They appeared implausible, in particular because the report assigned a number of victims per abuser which is absolutely not credible.

Advanced Explanations

When it comes to the explanations advanced, a somewhat discerning reader will have the grim feeling of being faced with some sort of remake or copy-and-paste job. When we follow what was happening in Germany with the birth of the Synodal Path, it is not difficult to spot some striking similarities.

The German episcopate commissioned academics from the universities of Mannheim, Heidelberg, and Gießen to conduct an independent study, hence the name the “MHG report,” consisting of 350 pages. It is specified that the aim of this study was to “determine the frequency of the sexual abuse,…as well as to describe the forms of sexual abuse and to identify structures and dynamics within the Church which might favor abuse.”

Unsurprisingly, we discover that these experts believe that the problem is primarily structural (or systemic), and that we must therefore change the operations of the Church held to be responsible:

The results of the study clearly show that “the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clerics must not only be perceived as an individual problem that is related to isolated perpetrators…but it must also be understood as a specific institutional problem affecting the Catholic Church.”

The report goes on to attack the morality of the Church, then the power of Orders: “A change in clerical power structures requires a fundamental examination of the ordained ministry of the priest and of his understanding of his role.”

“The sanctioning of individual accused persons, public remorse, financial benefits paid to persons affected and the establishment of prevention concepts…are necessary but by no means adequate measures.”

“Such fundamental positive approaches are even apt to preserve clerical power structures, since they are only aimed at the symptoms of an undesirable development, and thus prevent a debate taking place on the fundamental problem posed by clerical power.”

A Largely Compliant Copy

Those who have read the CIASE report will recognize the same concerns. The Commission first seeks to reassure: “Rest assured: the Commission was not won over by a kind of excess which would have led it to overstep its mandate, or even to rise above its precepts. To the contrary, it seemed to them that this was the only way to really accomplish it, even though it had not been envisaged in this form at the beginning of its work.”

Nevertheless, in the preceding paragraph the Commission wrote: “More fundamentally, we have studied the deviations, distortions, and perversions to which the doctrine and teachings of the Catholic Church have given rise, which may have contributed to the occurrence of sexual violence: the ‘clericalism’ criticized by Pope Francis in his Letter to the People of God of August 2018, which includes the excessive sacralization of the priest’s person; the overvaluation of the priest’s celibacy and charism.”

Further on, there is also one of the major projects of the Synodal Path, the separation of powers: “Without touching any dogma whatsoever, there is food for thought, according to categories which apply to any organization, including the Catholic Church, to the articulation between verticality and horizontality and to the separation of powers.”

“Similarly, there would be only advantages to developing the evaluation and internal control process, with tools as simple as risk mapping or annual consultations, to advance the governance of the Church without undermining any of its foundations.”

“In this regard, greatly strengthening the presence of lay people in general, and of women in particular, in the decision-making spheres of the Catholic Church, appears not only useful but necessary, with regard to the principle of equal dignity, what its leaders heard in plenary through CIASE have all admitted, certainly with different degrees of enthusiasm.”

In other words: the divine constitution of the Church must be changed to ensure normal functioning in the world today.

The position of CIASE members contains the following errors:

1. These judgments are formally outside their competence.

2. They are acting from a purely natural point of view ...

3. Which ignores the divine nature of the Church and her purpose.

In Search of Real Explanations

If we are looking for the real causes, we must first look at the 1983 Code of Canon Law. That it contains glaring inadequacies in relation to the question of abuse, we have the testimony of Benedict XVI, as well as that of Archbishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, who was responsible for reforming Title VI of the Code, concerning canonical processes. The two men give us the same story.

The secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts clearly explains the genesis of this reform which will take effect on December 8: “After the promulgation of the Code in 1983, the limits of Book VI on criminal law appeared.”

What limits? “By following an idea of ​​decentralization, the drafting of penal norms was then left very indeterminate. It was believed that it was up to the bishops and superiors to decide according to the gravity of the circumstances which offenses to punish, and how to punish them.”

The result was not long in coming: “For many, the difficulty of combining charity and punishment meant that criminal law was hardly applied.” Bishop Arrieta continues: “In addition, it was difficult to understand that the bishops react differently in similar situations.”

He concludes: “This situation has obliged the Holy See to intervene, as we know, by entrusting the most serious offenses exclusively to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and by granting powers of intervention to other dicasteries of the Curia.”

Adaptation under John Paul II

There is a remarkable text by Benedict XVI, dated April 11, 2019, which explains the reasons for this intervention. The Pope Emeritus gives an entirely new explanation of the abuse crisis, and makes several confessions regarding the post-conciliar disaster. Here is the passage that concerns canon law.

Benedict XVI addresses the question of the abuses and the insufficiency of the means of control provided by the new Code of Canon Law: “The question of pedophilia... did not become acute until the second half of the 1980s,” therefore under the pontificate of John Paul II.

The American bishops “sought help, since canon law, as it is written in the new (1983) Code, did not seem sufficient for taking the necessary measures. ... Only slowly, a renewal and deepening of the deliberately loosely structured [emphasis added] criminal law of the new Code began to take shape.”

At the root of this deliberately intended weakness, “there was a fundamental problem in the perception of criminal law. Only so-called guarantorism [obligation to guarantee to someone the enjoyment of their rights] was still regarded as ‘conciliar.’ This means that above all the rights of the accused had to be guaranteed, to an extent that factually excluded any conviction at all …their right to defense by way of guarantorism was extended to such an extent that convictions were hardly possible.” What a confession!

The Pope Emeritus justifies his action, explaining the conduct held: “A balanced canon law... must therefore not only provide a guarantee for the accused.… It must also protect the Faith….The Faith no longer appears to have the rank of a good requiring protection.”

Because of this guarantorism, it was necessary to circumvent the difficulty by transferring the powers of the Congregation of the Clergy, normally responsible for the treatment of crimes committed by priests, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the title of Delicta maiora contra fidem, (Major offenses against the faith). This arrangement also made it possible to impose the maximum penalty, i.e., expulsion from the clergy, which could not have been imposed under other legal provisions.”

Thus the implacable logic of personalism, which puts the individual before society and the common good, rendered the justice of the Church almost inoperative with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. While the 1917 Code had the arsenal to punish the culprits.

The Other Explanations by Benedict XVI

The Pope Emeritus, in the aforementioned text, gives other causes for the crisis of abuse. Without elaborating on what can be found in the article “Benedict XVI Ends His Silence” posted  on FSSPX.News of April 17, 2019, here are the elements he highlights.

- The social context: liberation from morality

Benedict XVI intends first to recall that “in the 1960’s an egregious event occurred, on a scale unprecedented in history. It could be said that in the 20 years from 1960 to 1980, the previously normative standards regarding sexuality collapsed entirely.”

These are the deep-seated causes of the crimes of abuse: the libertarian revolution of the 60s and the aggressive implementation of increasingly unbridled sex education, accompanied by the onslaught of pornography which at that time invaded movie theaters and then television screens. From then on there have been heralds of pansexuality willing to praise and to promote pedophilia.

To this analysis must be added the openness to the world brought about by Vatican II, which allowed these liberal ideas to penetrate more easily into ecclesiastical circles. The disappearance of the spirit of sacrifice had produced the same effect.

- The revolution in moral theology

In a parallel development there was a “collapse” of moral theology and of Church teaching on morality. This was the product of a veritable revolution that was born of deliberate contempt for the natural law.

Benedict XVI writes: “Until the Second Vatican Council, Catholic moral theology was largely founded on natural law, while Sacred Scripture was only cited for background or substantiation.

In the Council's struggle for a new understanding of Revelation, the natural law option was largely abandoned, and a moral theology based entirely on the Bible was demanded.” A major new admission that explains the post-conciliar moral bankruptcy.

--Attacks against the Magisterium of the Church

Many drew the conclusion that “questions concerning morality should not fall within the scope of infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church.” This manifested itself in the rejection by almost all of the bishops of Paul VI's encyclical on contraception, Humanae vitae (1968).

According to Benedict XVI, these causes have led to a triple rupture:

This breakdown in formation in the seminaries, made it possible, according to the Pope Emeritus, for the establishment “in various seminaries, of homosexual cliques, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries.”

Then a rupture in the recruitment of bishops whose criterion of appointment was “the spirit of the Council,” which led to a rejection of Tradition.

Finally a breakdown in Canon Law, which has already been mentioned.

But all this is rejected by the current bishops, who prefer the naturalistic and anti-Catholic explanations of the CIASE, which proposes to change the Church rather than hearts.