Canon law has effective penalties for guilty priests

THERE has been much mention in the media about the canon law of the Catholic Church in relation to the crime of sexual abuse of minors by clergy.

The impression being conveyed is that canon law seeks to excuse from penalties priests who sexually abuse minors. This is false.

Canon law has very effective means of addressing the crime. Whether they are applied in the concrete case is an entirely separate issue and a failure to apply the provisions of canon law properly does not mean that the law itself is fundamentally flawed.

When faced with a complaint of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest, the bishop or religious superior “is to inquire carefully, either personally or through some suitable person, about the facts and circumstances, and about the imputability (attribution of responsibility) of the offence” (Canon 1717). Imputability is presumed unless the contrary is demonstrated. The notion of penalties not being applied or being mitigated by reason of non-imputability is akin to the notion of ‘guilty but insane’ found in the secular courts.

However, even if penalties are not applied to a priest proven to have sexually abused a minor, by reason of non-imputability in a particular case, canon law has appropriate and effective measures to deal with him.

Canon 1044. 2. 2 states: “The following are impeded from the exercise of orders: one who suffers from insanity or from some other psychological infirmity...”

Being impeded from the exercise of orders means that the priest cannot exercise any priestly function.The very plea that saved him from a canonical penalty can be used to impede him from the exercise of orders.

Canon law also provides for the removal of a parish priest from his office. Canon 1741 provides a list of reasons for which he can be removed. Among them are: “a manner of acting which causes grave harm or disturbance to ecclesiastical communion, ineptitude or permanent illness (here permanent is understood to mean for at least a year) of mind or body, which makes the parish priest unequal to the task of fulfilling his duties satisfactorily and the loss of the parish priest’s good name.”

In the case of a curate in a parish, he does not enjoy ‘tenure of office,’ but can be removed at the will of the bishop “for a just reason.” (Canon 552)

Finally, lest there be any confusion, and contrary to oft peddled misinformation, there is no conflict between canon law and the civil law in this country and there is nothing in canon law which inhibits or prohibits the citizen’s right to exercise those rights which he/she enjoys under the constitution of Ireland.

In fact, canon law urges the observance of civil law except when it is clear that it “is contrary to divine law” (Canon 22) as has happened, for example, in totalitarian societies, such as Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

This principle is reminiscent of St. Thomas More’s famous statement: “I die the King’s good servant but God’s first.”

Fr Gerard Garrett

Regional Tribunal Offices

The Lough

Cork