This English translation of the document known in Latin as Crimine Solicitationis was presented Carmen Durso of Boston and Daniel J. Shea of Houston presented to U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan as a part of the ongoing investigation of the sexual abuse of over a thousand children by Catholic priests in the Boston archiocese. The document was obtained from U.S. Air Force Maj. Thomas Doyle, a Catholic chaplain and expert on the Catholic canon. It was Doyle who translated the document from Latin into English.
Representatives for the Boston archdiocese have refused to comment. It appears that the document was created within the highest offices of the Vatican, and has been recognized by the current and past Pope since 1962. Pope John Paul appears to have used the document until 2002, when the scandal of a coverup of an epidemic of sexual abuse by priests was exposed. Even then, the document remained secret until August of 2003.
"It's remarkable, the Vatican's willingness to treat sexual abuse of children as a papal secret," said Durso. The revelation of the document now appears to open up the American wing of the Roman Catholic Church to charges of obstruction of justice.
Unlike the Vatican, we here at Irregular Times aren't interested in keeping secrets from people. That's why we're publishing this Vatican document, kept secret from the "faithful" for generations, for you to peruse at your own desire. Read up, and make up your own mind.Albert G. Smith
Postus scriptus: Don't feel like reading this whole thing? That's okay, we found it a little mind-numbing ourselves, even as we were typing it in. We've picked out a few tidbits from this document that we found, let us say, highly irregular.
FROM THE SUPREME AND HOLY CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
FOR ALL PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS AND OTHER DIOCESAN ORDINARIES "EVEN OF THE ORIENTAL RITE"
ON THE MANNER OF PROCEEDING IN CASES OF SOLICITATION
The Vatican Press, 1962
On the manner of proceeding in cases of the crime of solicitation
[This text is] to be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.
1. The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacrimental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in a place] other than that [usually] designated for the hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession [The object of this temptation] is to solicit or provoke [the penitent] toward impure and obscene matters, whether by words or signs or nods of the head, whether by touch or by writing whether then or after [the note has been read] or whether he has had with [that penitent] prohibited and improper speech or activity with reckless daring (Constitution Sacrum Poenitentiae, 1).
2. [The right or duty of addressing] this unspeakable crime in the first instance pertains to the Ordinaries of the place in whose territory the accused has residence (V. below, numbers 30 and 31), and this not to mention through proper law, but also from a special delegation of the Apostolic See; It is enjoined upon these aforementioned persons to the fullest extent possible, (in addition to their being) gravely encumbered by their own consciences, that, after the occurrence of cases of this type, that they, as soon as possible, take care to introduce, discuss and terminate [these cases] with their proper tribunal. However, because of particular and serious reasons, according to the norm of Canon 247, 2, these cases can be directly deferred to the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office or be so ordered. Yet [the right of] the accused respondents ++5++ remains intact in any instance of judgment to have recourse to the Holy Office. However, recourse thus interposed does not suspend, excluding the case of an appeal, the exercise of the jurisdiction of the judge who has already begun to accept the case; and he can therefore be able to pursue the judgment up to the definitive decision, unless it has been established that the Apostolic See has summoned the case to itself (Cfr. Canon 1569).
3. By the name of Ordinaries of the place are understood to be, each for his own territory, the residential bishop, abbot or prelate nullius, the administrator, any vicar or Prefect Apostolic, [and, in the absence of these aforementioned (dignitaries), those who succeed then in power in the meanwhile by the prescription of law or from approved constitutions (Canon 198, 1); [This note does not apply], however, to the vicar general, except from his [having been] specially delegated.
4. The Ordinary of the place in these cases is the judge even for regulars [religious], even though exempt. It is indeed strictly prohibited for their superiors to interpose themselves in cases pertaining to the Holy Office (Canon 501, 2). However, having safeguarded the right of the Ordinary, there is nothing to prevent superiors themselves, if by chance they have discovered [one of their] subjects delinquent in the administration of the sacrament of Penance, from being able and having the onbligation of being diligently watchful over those same persons, and, even having administered salutary penances, to admonish and correct, and, if the case demands it, to remove him from some ministry. The will also be able to transfer him to another [assignment], unless the Ordinary of the place has forbidden it because he has already accepted the denunciation and has begun the inquisition.
5. The Ordinary of the place can either supervise these cases himself or commit their acceptance to an ecclesiastic who is serious and of a mature age. But [them may not [commit such cases] on a habitual basis or for the entire group of these cases, but must delegate as often as needed (toties quoties) for cases taken singly and through writing, saving the prescription of Canon 1613, 1.
6. Although, as a rule, a single judge, by reason of its secrecy, is prescribed for cases of this type, it is not forbidden, however, for th Ordinary in the more difficult cases to approve one or two assessors and counsellors, selected from the synodal judges (Canon 1575);
7. The promoter of justice, the defender of the accused and the notary, priests who are fittingly serious, of mature age, of integrity, doctors in canon ++7++law or otherwise skilled [in canon law] and worthy because of their zeal for justice (Canon 1589), and not found to be at any disadvantage toward the accused, which Canon 1613 treats, are to be nominated in writing by the Ordinary. The promoter of justice, however (who can be different from the promoter of justice of the Curia) [can be appointed] for the entire series of cases. The defender of the accused, however, and the notary are to be appointed each time for each case (toties quoties). Nor is the accused prohibited from proposing a defender seen as favorable to him (Canon 1655), who, however, is to be a priest and approved by the Ordinary.
8. Sometimes (this refers to his own location), the intervention [of the promoter of justice] is required, and, in the case where he has not been cited, unless by chance even if not cited he is still present [at the process], the Acts must be considered [totally] invalid. But, if, however, he has been legitimately cited and is not present at some [parts of the] Acts, the Acts indeed are valid, but afterwards [those Acts] will be totally subject to his examination so that he is able to comment upon all of them either in words or in writing and to propose what he has judged to be necessary or opportune (Canon 1587).
9. It is fitting that the notary, on the other hand, be present at all the Acts under pain of nullity or to note down with his own hand or at least to affix his signature [to the aforesaid Acts] (Canon 1585, 1). Because of the special character of these procedures, however, it is necessary for the Ordinary to dispense from the presence of the notary, though because of a reasonable excuse in the acceptance, as will be noted in its own place, of the denunciations and also in the expenditure of the degrees of attention or care expected of a notary in a given situation, as they say, in pursuing and in examining the witnesses inducted [into the case].
10. Minor helpers are to be used for nothing unless it is absolutely necessary; and these are to be chosen, in so far as possible, from the priestly order; always, however, they are to be of proved faithfulness and mature without exception. But it must be noted that, if, when necessity demands it, they can be nominated to accept certain acts, even if they are non -subjects living in another territory or the Ordinary of that territory [can] be interrogated (Can. 1570, 2), observing, of course, all of the cautions treated as above and in Canon 1613.
11. Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest ++7++ secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Indeed by this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the force of their own proper duty. The other helpers from the power of their oath which they must always take before they undertake their duties. And these, then are delegated, are interpolated, and are informed in their absence by means of the precept in the letters of delegation, interpellation, [or of] information, imposing upon them with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure.
12. The aforesaid oath, the formula for which is to be found in the appendix of this instruction (Form A), must be used (by those, obviously, who will use it habitually, once for all; by those, however, who are deputed only for some determined piece of business or case, as often as required (toties quoties), in the presence of the ordinary or his delegate done upon the Gospels of God (also by priests) and not otherwise and with the added promise of fulfilling faithfully their duty, to which, however, the excommunication, mentioned above, is not extended. There must be an avoidance, moreover, by those who are set over those involved in these cases, lest anyone be admitted to a knowledge of the matters from helper, unless in some way a party or an office to be performed by that person necessarily requires a knowledge of these matters.
13. The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses. To non of these, however, is there a subjection to a censure, unless by chance toward these same persons some censure has been expressly threatened upon the person himself, for his accusation, his deposition or of his violation (Excussionis?) [of such] by act. The accused, however, should be most seriously warned that even he, with all [the others], especially when he observes the secret with his defender, is under the penalty of suspension a divinis in case of a transgression to be incurred ipso facto.
14. Finally, as for the publishing, the language, the confirmation, the custody of and the accidental nullity, in every way [these matters] must be observed which are prescribed by Canons 1642-43, 379-80-82 and 1680 respectively.
TITLE NUMBER ONE
THE FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIME
15. Since the crime of solicitation takes place in rather rare decisions, lest it remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls, it was necessary for the one person, as for many persons, conscious of that [act of solicitation], namely, the solicited penitent, to be compelled to reveal it through a denunciation imposed by positive law. Therefore:
16. "According to the Apostolic Constitutions and especially of the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae of June 1, 1941, the penitent must denounce the accused priest of the delict of solicitation in confession within a month to the Ordinary of the place or to the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office;, and the confessor must, burdened seriously in conscience, to warn the penitent of this duty." (Canon 904.
17. Moreover, according to the mind of Canon 1935 anyone of the faithful can always denounce the derelict of solicitation, of which he will have had a certain knowledge; also, the obligation of denunciation urges as often as the person is bound to it from the natural law itself because of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.
18. "The faithful, however, who knowingly have disregarded the obligation to denounce the person by whom he was solicited, against the prescription (related above) of Canon 904, within a month, falls into an excommunication reserved latae sententiae, not to be absolved unless after he has satisfied the obligation or has promised seriously that he would do so" (Can 2368, 2).
19. The duty of denunciation is a personal one and is to be fulfilled regularly by the person himself who has been solicited. But if he is prevented by the most serious difficulties from doing this, then either by letter or by another person favorable to him should approach the ordinary or the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office or the Sacred Penitentiary, revealing all the circumstances (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1967, n. 7).
20. Anonymous denunciations must generally be rejected. However, they can have supportive force or give the occasion for further investigations, if the particular circumstances of the matters involved render an accusation probable. (Cfr Can. 1942, 2).
21. The obligation of denunciation on the part of the solicited penitent does not cease because of a spontaneous confession by the soliciting confessor done by chance, nor because of his being transferred, promoted, condemned, or presumably reformed and other reasons of the same kind. it ceases, however, at his death.
22. Sometimes it happens that the confessor or another ecclesiastic man is deputed to receive some denunciation, together with an instruction concerning the acts to be assumed for a judicial reason. Then that person is to be expressly warned that he should tell everything to the Ordinary or to the person whom he deputed, keeping no example or trace of it to himself.
23. In receiving the denunciation, this order is to be regularly observed: First an oath to tell the truth while touching the Holy Gospels is to be given to the person making the denunciation; he should be interrogated according to the formula (formula E), circumspectly, so that he narrates each and every circumstance briefly, indeed, and decently, but clearly and distinctly, pertaining to the solicitations he has suffered. In no way, however is it to be extracted from him whether he has consented to the solicitation. Rather, he should be expressly advised that he is not bound to manifest his consent which he perhaps gave. The responses [in uninterrupted fashion], not only as to what pertains to the substance but even to the words themselves of the testimony (Canon 1778) should be consigned to writing. The entire instrument [of the testimony] should be read in a clear and distinct voice to the one denouncing [the priest], giving [the one denouncing the priest] the option of adding, suppressing, correcting, or varying [his testimony]. His signature is then to be exacted [from him], or, if he does not know how to write, or cannot, the sign of the cross. And with him still being present, there should be added the signature of the person receiving the testimony, and if he is present (Cfr. n. 9), of the notary. And before he is dismissed, there should be presented to him, as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening him, if there is a need, with an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary or to the Holy See (Cfr. n. 13).
24. Even if, sometimes, for grave obstructing reasons always to be expressed in the acts, this ordinary practice cannot be observed, it is permitted that one or the other form from the prescribed forms, saving however the substance, ++11++ be omitted. Thus, if the oath cannot be taken upon the Holy Gospels, it can be given with some notion and also with words only. If the instrument of denunciation cannot be put into writing in an uninterrupted fashion, it can be written down at a more opportune time and place by the interviewer (the recipient of the denunciation) and then confirmed and signed by the person who is denunciating in the presence of the one receiving the denunciation; if the instrument itself cannot be read to the denouncer, it can be given to him to read.
25. In more difficult cases, however, it is also permitted for the denunciation (the previous permission of the denunciator having been given, lest the sacramental seal seemingly be violated, and on a day convenient to each party and in the confessional itself, it is to be read or given to read, and is confirmed with an oath and with one's proper signature or the sign of the cross (unless to do this is in every way impossible). Concerning all of these things, as has been said in the number above, an express tention [sic] must always be made in the Acts.
26. Still, if an entirely serious case also that is also clearly extraordinary urges, then the denunciation can also be done through a written account by the one denouncing, as long as, however, it is before the Ordinary of the place or his delegate and notary, if her is present (cfr. n. 9), and afterwards confirmed by an oath and signed. The same must be said concerning an informal denunciation, through a letter, for example, or given orally in an extrajudicial manner.
27. Any denunciation once accepted, the Ordinary is bound most gravely to communicate this as soon as possible to the promoter of the justice who must declare in writing, whether the specific crime of solicitation in the first sense is present in the case or not, and whether the ordinary disagrees with this or not. Within ten days he must submit the matter to the Holy Office.
28. If, on the other hand, the Ordinary and the promoter of justice agree together, or in some way the promoter of justice does not make his recourse to the Holy Office, then the Ordinary, if he has decreed that the specific delict of solicitation was not present, should order the Acts to be put into the secret archives, or he should use his right and duty according to the nature and gravity of the things that have been denounced. If, however, he believed that they were present, then he should proceed to the inquisition. (Cfr. Can. 1942, 1).
29. When the knowledge concerning the crime of solicitation is known first through the denunciations, a special inquisition must be pursued "so that it may become clear whether and on what foundation the imputation rests" (Canon 1939, 1); and this by the fact or even more so, since a crime of this type, as has already been stated above, is usually done in secret, and direct testimonies concerning [solicitation], especially from the hurt party, can only rarely be obtained.
Once the inquisition is open, and if the denounced priest is a religious, the Ordinary can prevent him from being transferred before the conclusion of the process.
For the most part, there are three areas which such an inquisition must cover, and they are:a) the past history of the denounced person;
30. Therefore, as to what pertains to the first letter (a), the Ordinary at the same time as he has accepted some denunciation of the crime of solicitation, if the one denounced, whether from the secular clergy or is a regular (cfr. n. 4), which residence in his territory, should try to find out from the archives whether other accusations against him are on record, even of a different type; and, if by chance he had previously been living in other territories, he should seek, even from the respective Ordinaries, and, if [he is a] religious, also from the regular superiors, whether they have anything which can aggravate the situation in any way. But he will accept these documents, referring to them in the Acts as accumulated together whether for a judgment, by reason of content [continentia] or association of causes [connexio] (cfr. Canon 1567), and thus all the matters will be brought forward together; ++13++ or for the establishment and consideration of an aggravating circumstance of recidivism according to the sense of Canon 2208.
31. If the whole matter concerns a denounced person who does not have residence in his territory, the Ordinary should transmit all the acts to the Ordinary of the one who has been denounced, or, if he does not know who this might be, [he will transmit all the acts] to the Supreme Holy Congregation of the Holy Office reserving the right, in the meanwhile, to deny to the denounced priest the faculty of exercising the ecclesiastical ministries in his own diocese or of revoking them already by chance conceded to him, in the event that he approaches [the Ordinary for these faculties] or returns [to the diocese of the Ordinary].
32. As to what pertains to the second letter (b), the importance of each denunciation, of their qualities and of the circumstances must be weighed seriously and accurately so that it is evident how they themselves merit belief. It is not sufficient that [this be done] in any way whatsoever, but it is necessary that this become known by means of an established and a judicial form; this customarily is signified in the Tribunal of the Holy Office by the phrase "diligentias peragere" [to undertake all the required formalities.
33. In order to arrive at this purpose [of undertaking all the required formalities], as soon as the Ordinary shall have accepted any denunciation of the crime of solicitation, either personally or through a priest, he will summon, either personally or through a priest specially delegated to do so, two witnesses (he summons them separately and with appropriate circumspection) two witnesses, in so far as it is possible, from the ranks of the ecclesiastics. But it is far better, above any exception, to summon persons, who are familiar with both the one denounced and the one denouncing. These persons, with the notary present (cfr, n, 9), who is to put the interrogations and responses in writing, [are put] under the sanctity of an oath to tell the truth and to observe its secret nature, accompanied by the threat, if it seems necessary, of excommunication reserved to the Ordinary of the place or to the Holy See (cfr. n. 13). He will interrogate them (Formula G), concerning the life, morals and public reputation both of the one denounced and of the one denouncing. [They will be asked] whether they think that the one denouncing is worthy of credence; or whether, on the other hand, that person is capable of lying, of calumniating and of perjuring himself; and whether these persons know whether there has ever been any case of hatred, grudge or reason for enmity between the one denouncing and the denounced person.
34. If the denunciations are many in number, there is nothing to prevent the same [character] witnesses to be used for all or [to use different] witnesses, always being careful to have a double testimony as to the denounced and any denouncer.
35. If two witnesses cannot be found where each individual knows both the denounced and the denouncer, or if they cannot be interrogated at the same time without the danger of scandal ++14++ or without detriment to the good name concerning him, then arrangements to be made, so that two persons, by means of a divided [dimidiatae] [testimony], namely, interrogate two witnesses only about the denounced and another two only about the individual denouncers. In this case, however, it will be necessary to inquire elsewhere as to whether hatred, enmity or any other human disaffection agatinst the denunciated [priest] was the case.
36. If not even the divided efforts cannot be pursued, or because capable witnesses cannot be found or because scandal or detriment has to be feared and rightly so, there is the possibility of substituting, cautiously, however, and prudently [for the witnesses] with extrajudicial information about the denounced and the ones denouncing and their mutual personal relationships, with [all of this] put into writing; or [the same results can come about] also through supportive proofs which corroborate or weaken the accusation.
37. This [article], then, pertains to the third letter (c). If in the denunciations, which happen not rarely, some persons are influence, perhaps also solicited, or others who can [simply] bring forward testimony concerning for some type of reasons. All of these people must be examined severally (that is, separately) according to the judiciary formula [below.] (Formula I). First of all, they must be interrogated through general matters, and then, by degrees, as the matter evolves, arriving at the particulars whether and how they had really been solicited, or did they know or hear that other persons had been solicited (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 9).
38. The greatest circumspection must be used in inviting these persons to this interview; for it will not always be opportune to bring them to a public place such as the chancery, especially if these are girls who are being subjected to the examination, married women, or those who are domestics. If those to be examined live either in monasteries, in hospitals or in pious homes for girls, then, the particular [persons] should be summoned with great diligence and on different days according to circumstances (Instruction of the Holy Office, July 20, 1890).
39. What was said above about the way to receive the denuciations, will also be applied, changing what has to be changed (mutatis mutandis), to the examination of persons who have been brought forward.
[If the examination of these persons, who corroborate each other by positive evidence, and because of which examinations there exists [therefore] either an arraigned priest or another person weighed down [with some accusations], then the denunciations that are true and strictly speaking denunciations and all the rest of the information about these [denunciations] are pursued regarding the qualification of the crime, regarding the resumption of the preceding acts and of the resumption of the efforts to be taken in accordance with what is prescribed above.
41. Once, however, all these matters are taken care of, the Ordinary is to communicate the Acts to the promoter of justice, who will see now whether all the procedures [actions] have been performed correctly or not. And, if he thinks that there is nothing against their acceptance, he should declare the inquisitorial process closed.
42. When the inquisitorial process has been closed, the Ordinary, having heard the promoter of justice, should proceed as follows, namely:
a) if it is evident that denunciation totally lacks a foundation, he should order this to be declared in the Acts, and the documents of the accusation should be destroyed;
b) if the indications of the crime are vague and indeterminate or uncertain, he should order that the Acts be put into the archives, to be taken up again if something else happens in the future;
c) if, however, there are indications of a crime serious enough but not yet sufficient to institute an accusatorial process, as especially in the case where only one or two denunciations are had, where indeed, [the regular process was followed] with diligence but were not corroborated by any or insufficient proofs (cfr. n. 36), or even many [proofs] but with uncertain procedures or procedures that are deficient, he should order that the accused be admonished accordint to the different [types of] cases (Formula M) the first or second [time?], paternally, seriously or most seriously according to the norm of Canon 2307, adding, if necessary an explicit threat of the trial process, should some other new accusation is laid upon [the accused]; the Acts, as above, should be kept in the archives and in meanwhile a check should be kept on the morals of the accused (Canon 1946, 2, n. 2:
d) If then certain or at last probable arguments to institute the accusation are present, he should offer the accused to be cited and be subjected to the matters [which are prescribed for this trial].
44. If, after the first admonition, other accusations against the same accused take place concerning solicitations, preceding the admonition itself, the Ordinary should see, according to his own choice and conscience, whether the first admonition should be considered sufficient or whether he should proceed to a new admonition or even to further measures (Ibiden, 6).
45. It is the right of the Promoter of Justice to appeal and to have recourse for an accused against the canonical prescriptions of this kind it to the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office within ten days from their dissemination or intimation. In this case, the Acts of the case will have to be transmitted to the same Holy Congregation according to the prescription of Canon 1890.
46. These actions, however, even if put into effect, do not extinguish the penal action, and therefore, when other accusations by chance take place, a method will be followed concerning those matters which also have given cause to the said canonical instructions.
47. When once there is sufficiency to institute an accusation, as was said above in number 42 (d), arguments should be made openly, and the Ordinary, having heard the promoter of justice and having observed everything, in so far as the peculiar nature of these cases allows, which is stated concerning the citation and denunciation of judicial acts in Book IV, Title VI, Chapter II, of the code, shall issue a decree (Formula O) concerning the accused in the presence of the Ordinary or before a judge delegated by himself (cfr. n. 5), citing [him] for crimes introduced and brought against him, which in the forum of the Holy Offices are said in unclassical parlance "Reum constitutis subiicere" [to subject the accused to an indictment]; and he will take care to bring this information to the accused himself in accordance with canonical principles.
48. The judge should paternally and gently exhort the accused, who has now been cited, when he appears, and before the indictments are formally begun, to confession, and, when he has consented to these exhortations, the judge, having summoned the nortary or ++17++ even , if he has found it more opportune (cfr. n. 9) without his intervention, can receive the confession.
49. In this case, if the confession is found corroborated by the Acts and substantially complete, a vow first having been taken, the Promoter of the Justice puts the case in writing, omitting the other formalities (See below, in Chapter IV), and he will be able to conclude [all of this] with a definitive decision, having given, however, to the accused the option of accepting the decision itself or of petitioning to have the regular and complete process carried out to the end.
50. If, however, on the other hand, the accused as denied the crime, or has made a confession that is not substantially integral, or even has summarily refused the decision in view of his confession, the judge, with the notary present, should read him the decree by which he declares, concerning which paragraph 47 speaks, and the deliberations are then opened.
51. The trial opened, the judge can, having heard the Promoter of Justice according to the mind of Canon 1956, suspend the accused respondent either from exercising any sacred ministry at all or only from hearing the sacramental confessions of the faithful up until the time of the judgment. If, however, by chance he things that [the accused] can impose fear upon the witnesses or secretly instigate them [to thwart the trial] or in any way impede the course of justice, he can also, having also heard the promoter of justice, order that he go to a predefined location and remain there under special vigilence (Canon 1957). And, on the other hand, [however], each decree of this type is not given a remedy in law (Canon 1958).
52. These things having been taken care of, there should be a procedure to present the accusation to the person accused, according to Formula P, having cautiously and most diligently made sure that the persons of the accused and especially of those denouncing him not be revealed, and, on the part of the accused, that he in no way violate the sacramental seal. Now if something in the surge of speech slips out which seems to savor of either a direct or indirect violation of the seal, the judge should not permit this to be referred to in the Acts by the notary; an if, by chance, it has been inconsiderately [put into the Acts], he should order, as soon as he notices it, to be completely deleted. In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth (Cfr. Canon 1744).
53. The indictment of the accused having been completed in all matters and the Acts having been seen and approved by the Promoter of Justice, the judge is to issue a decree concerning the conclusion of the case (Canon 1860), and, if by chance he is a delegated judge, he should transmit all the papers of the proceedings to the Ordinary.
54. If it happens, however, that the accused remains countumacious, or, for some grave reasons the indictments cannot be pursued in the diocesan Curia, the Ordinary, saving to himself the right of suspending the accused a divinis, should defer the entire case to the Holy office.
55. The Ordinary, having received the Acts, unless he wishes himself to proceed to the definitive decision, should delegate the judge (cfr. n. 5), another one, in so far as it can be done, different from the one who conducted the inquisition or the indictment (cfr. Canon 1941, 3). The judge, however, whoever he is, whether the Ordinary or his delegate, should designate, according to his prudent decision a space of time for the defender to prepare a defense and to tender this in a double copy, one copy to be given to the judge himself and the other copy to the Promoter of Justice (cfr. Canons 1862-63-64). However, the promoter of justice, within a time period likewise previously established by the judge, should tender in writing his own inquiry (requisitoriaum) as they now call it.
56. Still, a congruent time having been interposed (Canon 1870), the judge according to his conscience informed from the Acts and from the proofs (Canon 1869), will pronounce a definitive decision, either a condemnatory decision, if he is certain of the crime, an acquittal, if he is certain of his innocence; or an abandonment of the charges, if he is invincibly doubtful because of the lack of proofs.
57. The decision is rendered according to the respective formulas connected to this Instruction and will have been put in writing, with the addition of an executory decree (Canon 1918). First of all, the Promoter of Justice having been notified beforehand, the decision must be solemnly made known to the accused, who has been cited for this by the judge who is presiding at the Tribunal, with the notary present. If, however, the accused, rejecting the citation, has not appeared, the intimation of the decision should be made through letter, having obtained exact testimony of its reception through the public post office.
58. Both the accused, if he thinks that he has been [wrongly treated], and the promoter of justice have the right of appealing from this decision to the Supreme Tribunal of the Holy Office, according to the prescription of Canon 1879 and following within ten days from the solemn notification of the same; and the appeal of this type has the effect of suspending the decision [suspensive], but not so, if it is given (Cfr. n. 51) for a suspension from the hearing ++19++ of sacramental confessions or from exercising a sacred ministry.
59. The appeal having been made, the judge must transmit an authentic copy or the original itself of all the Acts of the case to the Holy Office, as quickly as it can be done, adding information as necessary or as he has judged to be opportune (Canon 1890).
60.As for the complaint, then, of nullity, as sometimes might occur, let those details prescribed by Canons 1892-97 be observed to the last detail. However, what pertains to the execution of the decision, those prescriptions should also be observed, according to the nature of these cases, as is found in Canons 1920-24.
61. "He who has committed the crime of solicitation..., should be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from the hearing of sacramental confessions or even, according to the gravity of the delict, should be declared incapable of accepting them. He should be deprived of all benefices and dignities, of his active and passive voice, and be declared incapable for all these [honors and capacities], and in the more grievous cases also be subjected to reduction [to the lay state]. Thus states the Code in Canon 2368, 1.
62. For a correct and practical application of this canon, in penalties decreed against priests convicted of the crime of solicitation with an equal regard for the mind of Canon 2218, 1, these matters, especially for estimating the gravity of the crime, should be kept before one's eyes, namely: the number of persons solicited and their condition, as, for example, if they are minors in age or especially consecrated through religious vows to God; the form of solicitation, if perhaps, especially, it is joined with false teaching or false mysticism; the turpitude of the acts not only formal but also material and especially the connection of solicitation with other delicts; the length of the obscene conversation [between the parties involved]; the repetition of the crime, the recidivism after his admonition, and the obstinate malice of the solicitor.
63. To the greatest penalty of degradation, there can be added for a religious who is accused the reduction to the status of a lay-brother. This is only then imposed when, having weighed everything, it evidently appears that the accused, immersed in the depths of malice in the abuse of his sacred ministry, combined with the grave scandal that is harmful to the faithful and their souls, exists to such a degree of foolhardiness and habit, so that there is no hope, humanly speaking, or almost no hope, of his amendment that is evident any more.
64. On top of the penalties properly imposed, in order to obtain the effect of these penalties more fully and securely, there will be supplementary sanctions in cases of this type, namely:
a) Upon all accused persons judicially convicted there should be interposed congruous, to the degree of the faults, and salutary penances, not in substitution for the penalties properly speaking in the sense of (Canon 2312, 1), but as a complement [to them], and among these (cfr. Canon 2313) especially spiritual exercises for some days in some religious house to be performed with a suspension, during these times, from the celebration of Mass.
b) Upon the accused convicted who has confessed, moreover, there should be imposed an abjuration, according to different cases, if there is a light or a strong suspicion oh heresy into which because of the nature of the crime soliciting priests fall into, or even of formal heresy if by chance the crime of solicitation has been joined to false dogma.
c) Those who are in danger of falling back [into their former ways], and therefore of becoming greater recidivists should be submitted to particular vigilence (Canon 2311).
d) As often as, in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, it seems necessary for the amendment of the delinquent, for the removal of the near occasion [of soliciting in the future], or for the prevention of scandal or reparation for it, there should be added a prescription for a prohibition of remaining in a certain place (Canon 2302).
e) Then, when concerning the absolution of an accomplice, as this is outlined in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentieae, there is no indication at all in the external forum, and, therefore, of the sacramental seal, there can be reason to add at the end of the condemnatory sentence an admonition to the accused that, if he has by chance absolved his accomplice, he should quiet his conscience by having recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary.
65. According to the norm of Canon 2236, 3, all of these penalties, as they have been applied once by the judge ex officio, cannot be remitted except by the Holy See through the Supreme and Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.
66. Whenever an Ordinary immediately accepts a denunciation of the crime of solicitation, he should not omit telling this to the Holy Office. And if by chance he treats of a priest whether secular or religious having residence in another terriroty, he should transmit at the same time (as has already been stated above, n. 31) to the Ordinary of the place, where the denounced actually is staying, or, if the address is not known, he should send to the Holy Office an authentic copy of the denunciation itself with the procedures, in the best manner possible, and with opportune information and declarations.
67. Any Ordinary who has proceeded correctly against some priest who is soliciting, should not omit informing the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office, and, if it is a matter in which a religious is involved, also the General Superior concerning the outcome of the case.
68. If any priests condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory, the Ordinary a quo should immediately warn the Ordinary ad quem of the things that preceded that person and of his juridical status.
69. If any priest suspended in a case of solicitation from hearing sacramental confessions but not from sacred preaching happens to go to another territory to preach, the Ordinary of this territory should be reminded by the prelate of the accused, whether secular or religious, that he cannot be utilized for hearing sacramental confessions.
70. All these official communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin [sub gravi].
THE WORST CRIME
71. By the name of the worst crime is understood at this point a signification of any obscene external deed, gravely sinful, in any perpetrated by a cleric or attempt with a person of his own sex.
72. Those things that have been stated concerning the crime of solicitation up to this point are also valid, changing only those things necessary to be changed by their very nature, for the worst crime, if someone by chance in the presence of the Ordinary of the place, concerning which (which God may prevent) happens to be the accused, having accepted the obligation of the denunciation from the positive law of the Church, unless perhaps it has been joined withe the crime of solicitation in sacramental confession. In decreeing penalties, however, against delinquents of this type, besides those which are found spoken of above, and they should also be kept before one's eyes (Canon 2359, 2).
73. To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality).
74. Against accused clerics for these crimes, if they are exempt religious, and unless there takes place at the same time the crime of solicitation, even the regular superior can proceed, according to the holy canons and their proper constitutions, either in an administrative or a judicial manner. However, they must communicate the judicial decision pronounced as well as the administrative decision in the more serious cases to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office.
FROM THE AUDIENCE OF THE HOLY FATHER, MARCH 16, 1962
Our Most Holy Father John XXIII, in an audience granted to the most eminent Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962, deigned to approve and confirm this instruction, ordering upon those to whom it pertains to keep it and observe it in the minutest detail.
At Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation, March 16, 1962.
Place of the seal . . . . . . . . . A. Cardinal Ottaviani
Due to their extreme length, Irregular Times has not transcribed the appendices, which are described by one lawyer as a guide for priests on how to conduct a rigged trial sure to let pedophile priests off the hook. We do have it, however, along with the rest of this document, right here in PDF format
In these Irregular Times, we must talk back! Go ahead and send us your smart retorts.