This has been discussed under canon law not only since the diocese of Aachen did so in October 2023.
The scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston, which became public in 2002, and later lists of other US dioceses with "credibly accused" people raised this question.
A response from the Vatican Ministry of Justice - the dicastery for legal texts - has now recently become known.
In a letter dated 5 September 2024, the authority responded to an enquiry from an unnamed cleric on 3 July of the same year. He wanted to know how "the good name of a deceased person is regulated in the current canon law context".
The background to the enquiry is the church's investigation into abuse. The specific enquiry could originate from the USA, where high claims for damages are sometimes made against dioceses due to allegations against deceased persons.
In addition, the criteria for categorising allegations against "credibly accused persons" are controversial.
The Vatican response, signed by the prefect and secretary of the authority, Filippo Iannone and Juan Ignacio Arrieta, is primarily based on Canon 220 of the General Canon Law (CIC). This states that "no one is permitted to unlawfully damage the reputation he enjoys".
It is true that "in some cases, damage to reputation can be legitimate", according to the letter. This is the case, for example, "in order to avoid danger or threat to persons or the general public".
Aachen diocese values interest in clarification more highly
"In the case of deceased suspected criminals", however, such a danger or threat is ruled out, which is why there can be "neither a legitimate nor proportionate reason for the damage to reputation".
"It therefore does not appear permissible to justify the publication of such news for alleged reasons of transparency or reparation."
The Diocese of Aachen, on the other hand, values the interest of those affected in clarification and information more highly.
"We act transparently, consistently and comprehensively. No perpetrator should remain undetected," said the then Vicar General Andreas Frick. In addition to legally undisputed cases of state or canonical convictions of perpetrators, the diocese cites as a criterion "at least one positive application for recognition of suffering from the Independent Commission for Recognition Services (UKA) at federal level".
A decision based on a plausibility check constitutes "sufficient suspicion for the assumption that an alleged offender is involved". The prerequisite for naming a person is "for reasons of personal protection, that the person died more than ten years ago".
The dicastery's legal experts take a different view. The fundamental legal problem is not that the dead can no longer defend themselves against accusations.
Rather, the posthumous naming violates two generally recognised legal principles that "cannot reasonably be overridden by a general 'right to information'": "1. the principle of presumption of innocence until - judicial - proof to the contrary and finality (see also canon 1321 §1); 2. the principle of non-retroactivity of the offence, according to which one cannot be convicted - and consequently not charged - for conduct that did not formally constitute an offence at the time of its possible commission."
This also applies, for example, to "the so-called omission of general duties of care".
Constitutional law expert: plausibility not a "sufficient and appropriate category"
Furthermore, accusations are often based on non-ecclesiastical grounds with a "relatively low standard of evidence".
This leads to "the name of a person who is merely accused - but unproven - being published without the right of defence being exercised".
In its reasoning, the authority referred to a speech by the Pope at the 2019 Anti-Abuse Summit, where Francis had stated, among other things, that the publication of lists of accused persons, including by dioceses, should be avoided as long as there was no final conviction.
With this decision, the dicastery is in line with the Bonn-based constitutional law expert Josef Isensee, who doubted to the KNA that plausibility is a "sufficient and appropriate category" to be allowed to name "alleged perpetrators".
A plausibility check only emphasises the conclusiveness of the presentation, but not its consistency with reality.
Plausibility is therefore never enough - nor is the bishop's desire to demonstrate penitence and official repentance - to legitimise the encroachment on personal rights.
Isensee also accused the church of moving "from the error of covering up evil to the error of illegitimate publication" through such a practice.
This poses problems for the investigation of abuse by dioceses.
In the opinion of Stefan Schweer, canonist at the officialdom in Osnabrück, it is hardly possible for the church to inform the public that other possible victims may come forward.
Such a request would only be conceivable if allegations were to be publicised through non-church channels.
The reality would be difficult to reconcile with the fundamental regulations of the dicastery. Paragraph 56 of the intervention regulations of the German Bishops' Conference states: "The public will be informed in an appropriate manner while protecting the privacy of those involved."
Clarifications on the entry in the baptismal register
In a second decision of 25 October, the Dicastery for Legal Texts responded to questions from a bishop regarding entry in the church's baptismal register in three different cases: 1. "if the child is the biological child of a person living in a homosexual union or has been adopted by a homosexual couple", or 2."is the fruit of heterologous insemination, a "surrogate motherhood""; and 3. the question of how persons who have undergone hormonal interventions and gender reassignment surgery should be entered in the baptismal register.
According to the dicastery, answers to these "extremely sensitive cases of great topicality" require decisions to be made at national level, i.e. mostly by the relevant bishops' conferences.
These should decide whether they need regulations and request authorisation from the Vatican to issue such rules. The German Bishops' Conference does not yet have a standardised regulation.
In some dioceses, parents of baptised children are not registered as "father" and "mother" but as "parent 1" and "parent 2" in order to comply with state requirements. In the case of adopted children, in some dioceses the adoptive parents are entered as parents and the biological parents under "Remarks"; in other dioceses it is the other way round.
Diversity in the baptismal register - the law follows life
Children of same-sex parents, children of different genders or transgender people who change their marital status: All of this is also recorded in the baptismal register.
Until now, there were no rules for this - until the Archdiocese of Freiburg issued a decree for entries "in special cases". Official Thorsten Weil explains the background.
The Archdiocese of Freiburg had already issued a general implementing decree on baptismal register entries in special cases in 2022.
However, this only applies to very few cases, around one or two cases per year, said Offizial Thorsten Weil in an interview with the portal katholisch.de.
Previously, the archdiocese had selected the baptismal entry for the individual case based on the general regulations for children of single parents, unmarried couples and the regulations of the Bishops' Conference for the baptismal entry of adopted children. "What fitted best - and corresponded to the state requirements," says Weil.
Nothing is changed in the church register
The Vatican letter from last October cites canon 877 of the general canon law as the legal basis.
It repeatedly mentions the child's "mother", "father" and "parents" - whereby "parents", according to the letter, "in this context means father and mother". The following statements signalise flexibility and consideration for national legal requirements.
In the event of a change of sex of the person being baptised following hormone treatment or surgery, the Vatican authority makes two stipulations: 1. the baptismal register may not be changed by entering the person's new civil name; 2. it must be noted in the church registers "that the sex registered or declared at the registry office no longer corresponds to the sex registered at the time of baptism".
In practice, a parish office enters the information provided by the relatives in the baptismal register.
Any change of gender prior to baptism does not have to be mentioned.
The general rule is: nothing is changed in the church register (except for obvious errors), but additions are possible - and may also appear in extracts from church registers requested later by the persons themselves or, in the case of non-adults, by relatives.
State regulations must be observed, such as the ban on disclosing an adoption relationship.