LAST WEEK I rang the Holy See press office looking for an official reaction to the Dublin diocesan report.The Vatican’s senior spokesman, Fr Federico Lombardi, patiently trotted out the standard Holy See line as to how such “matters” were the concern of the local church.
The Vatican was aware of the seriousness of the report but did not want to interfere, added the spokesman.
Given that the report continued to greatly exercise and trouble minds in Ireland, I inquired next day if the Holy See had anything to add.
This time, Fr Lombardi’s number two, Don Ciro Benedettini, answered the phone.
When he heard my voice, knowing what I would want to ask, Don Ciro began to laugh.
It was a friendly, inoffensive laugh of the sort that said, “Come on, Paddy, We have nothing more to say on this matter.”
No one in the Holy See is saying it, but there is every reason to believe that the Vatican is greatly relieved that the report has failed to generate the sort of international publicity that would give oxygen to sustained negative worldwide coverage.
Just another Irish sex-abuse scandal, then?
Further, there is no real reason for the Vatican to issue any new statement on the matter – that ground was comprehensively covered by Pope Benedict’s 2006 Ad Limina statement (reportedly crafted by the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin), so there is nothing more to say.
Or so goes the official Holy See line.
Even the report’s implication that both the Holy See (specifically the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and the papal nuncio in Ireland were less than forthcoming when asked for information ruffled hardly a Vatican feather.
That was purely a question of diplomatic protocol, said the Holy See.
Ironically, both the Irish Government and senior Vatican diplomats would seem to agree.
Speaking in the Dáil on Tuesday, Brian Cowen disappointed many when he appeared to defend the Vatican and, in particular, the way in which it had dealt with the commission.
The Taoiseach said it was “regrettable” that the Vatican invocation of diplomatic privilege had given “the impression that the Holy See was refusing to co-operate with the commission”, adding: “The commission and the Holy See, it appears, acted in good faith in this matter, even if the best outcome was not achieved.”
For many, this was an unnecessarily “supine” response from the head of the Government.
The outrage expressed by much Irish public opinion at the conduct of the Vatican might be understandable, but that anger fails to take on board a fundamental realpolitik principle in international diplomacy.
If the Vatican is to be seen as a state that has colluded in the commission of crimes against Irish citizens, then the Vatican (and its representatives) should in some way be punished: Irish citizens should have some redress against the Holy See, or so goes a certain line of reasoning.
Those who would dearly like to see the Vatican at least “cross-examined” in a court of law have taken hope from a US ruling last March in which a federal appellate in Oregon court ruled that an unnamed former Portland man, known in court papers as John Doe, could sue the Vatican in a US court over his alleged molestation as a teenager by a (then Portland) parish priest, namely Fr Andrew Ronan of the Friar Servants of Mary.
The US supreme court is considering whether to hear an appeal from the Vatican against this decision.
The point about this, though, is that in all likelihood, not only will the supreme court not rule against the Vatican but it is probable that the case will not even come before the supreme court.
Prof Nick Cafardi, professor of law at Duquesne University, Pennsylvania, and author of After Dallas – the US Bishops’ Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children , argues that under the terms of the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, lawyers for the plaintiff face two huge problems.
First, they have to prove that there is a “statutory” case to answer. In other words, the lawyers would have to prove that the Vatican does not enjoy diplomatic immunity when engaged in non-sovereign activity (ie the kind of activity private firms or individuals might perform).
Second, they would have to prove that the Vatican had exercised precise “control” over their agents, in this case Catholic priests.
Prof Cafardi, senior Vatican diplomats in Rome and John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, a US-based newspaper, all suggest that this simply will not happen.
For a start, says Allen, the US is the last country in the world that wants to see diplomatic immunity being eroded.
If outraged Catholics could now get at the Holy See, then just how many outraged Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Chileans, Salvadoreans etc would want to get at the US state department?
How many similar problems would other world powers such as Britain, Russia or France then face?
Then there is the question of the (relative) centralisation of the Catholic Church. Critics often argue that the church is an all-powerful monolith which speaks with just one voice, that of the pope.
In reality, though, even if only the pope may decide on doctrinal issues, when it comes to day-to-day administration, the local Catholic churches have a deal of administrative and fiscal autonomy.
As one experienced Vatican diplomat puts it, Rome appoints the bishops but Dublin pays the damages (or Columbus, Ohio, or Brisbane, Australia, or wherever).
Remember the Catholic Church in the US has paid more than $2 billion (€1.34 billion) in compensation to clerical sex abuse victims.
In a sense, too, the Vatican moves very handily from being a temporal power to a worldwide religion.
The religion might abhor clerical sex abuse but the temporal power is only too glad and determined to hold on to the privileges of diplomatic immunity.
To sue the Vatican is not, was not and never will be an easy matter.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
SIC: IT