Another Vatican Sexual Abuse Scandal Claim Deflates (The Indian Priest)

Get Religion looks how the Press handled this story yesterday. See Another day, another priest, another NYTs report

Here is the statement the an attorney who represents the Vatican in American litigation, Jeffrey Lena:

The decision regarding the canonical penalties imposed upon Father Jeyapaul was made by the Bishop of Ootacamund, whose diocese is located in the Nilgiris district of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested in this matter that Father Jeyapaul agree to laicization, demonstrating that the Congregation believed that the accusations were serious enough to merit dismissal from the clerical state. However, as a matter of longstanding canon law, such decisions are made by the local bishop, who is deemed to be generally in the best position to adjudicate the case relating to the priest in question.
It is important to note that the canonical proceeding involving Father Jeyapaul was wholly separate from any pending civil or criminal proceeding. The Holy See has cooperated with the requests of law enforcement authorities seeking the extradition of Father Jeyapaul to the United States, and in fact provided his exact location in India to assist such efforts.

There is more here.

The latest scandal to surface in the US does not concern an American, but a visiting priest from India. Rev. Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul, from Tamil Nadu, was working temporarily in the Diocese of Crookston, Minnesota, in 2004. He allegedly sexually assaulted at least one girl but returned home to see his dying mother (Um, that’s what he told the bishop) just before the accusations surfaced. Minnesota authorities are now seeking to extradite him. According to the former bishop, Victor H. Balke, he also misappropriated funds and possibly violated the seal of confession.

The story appears on the front page of today’s New York Times, along with a parcel of documents helpfully supplied by Jeff Anderson, who heads up a firm of lawyers who are trying to sue the Holy See. As supplied, the documents suggest that the Vatican did very little, although Bishop Balke was frantically trying to have the errant priest brought to justice. “I cannot in good conscience allow this matter to be passed over because the cleric has left my territory,” Bishop Balke wrote. “In my mind that would be a shameful act of betrayal towards the women and girls in India to whom Fr. Jeyapaul could at present pose a serious risk.”

Now here is the the problem. One of the complaints that the American Bishops in the early days of the abuse scandal and a fear were that these cases were dragging on too long. There was a fear that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith would take all these cases and there would be delays delays delays.

As John Allen reported
Back in June 2002, when the American bishops first proposed a set of new canonical norms to Rome, the heart of which was the "one strike and you're out" policy, they initially wanted to avoid canonical trials altogether. Instead, they wanted to rely on a bishop's administrative power to permanently remove a priest from ministry. That's because their experience of Roman tribunals over the years was that they were often slow, cumbersome, and the outcome was rarely certain.

Most famously, bishops and experts would point to the case of Fr. Anthony Cipolla in Pittsburgh, during the time that Donald Wuerl, now the Archbishop of Washington, was the local bishop. Wuerl had removed Cipolla from ministry in 1988 following allegations of sexual abuse. Cipolla appealed to Rome, where the Apostolic Signatura, in effect the Vatican's supreme court, ordered him reinstated. Wuerl then took the case to Rome himself, and eventually prevailed. The experience left many American bishops, however, with the impression that lengthy canonical trials were not the way to handle these cases.
When the new American norms reached Rome, they ran into opposition precisely on the grounds that everyone deserves their day in court -- another instance, in the eyes of critics, of the Vatican being more concerned about the rights of abuser priests than victims. A special commission of American bishops and senior Vatican officials brokered a compromise, in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would sort through the cases one-by-one and decide which ones would be sent back for full trials.
The fear at the time was that the congregation would insist on trials in almost every case, thereby dragging out the administration of justice, and closure for the victims, almost indefinitely. In the end, however, only 20 percent were sent back for trials, while for the bulk of the cases, 60 percent, bishops were authorized to take immediate administrative action, because the proof was held to be overwhelming.
The fact that only 20 percent of the cases were subjected to full canonical trial has been hailed as a belated grasp in Rome of the need for swift and sure justice, and a victory for the more aggressive American approach to the crisis. It should be noted, too, that bypassing trials has been roundly criticized by some canon lawyers and Vatican officials as a betrayal of the due process safeguards in church law.

Hence to describe that 20 percent figure as a sign of "inaction" cannot help but seem, to anyone who's been paying attention, rather ironic. In truth, handling 60 percent of the cases through the stroke of a bishop's pen has, up to now, more often been cited as evidence of exaggerated and draconian action by Ratzinger and his deputies.

Now in this case there was a trial. I t also appears the Vatican was not pleased with the result or the choice of the Bishop. However under Canon law (The VATICAN IS NOT A DICTATOR) it appears they had to abide by the result.

Now for many there will be a response CANON LAW what a excuse. The problem with that line of logic is the VATICAN cannot make it up as it goes along!! It cannot violate Canon Law. If it did Chaos would happen. If you are concerned about the sexual abuse you don't want that to happen either. There has to be norms that needs to be followed. If there is no norms , no procedure, then the underlying problem can't be solved because there is no responsibility

We see a glimpse of this in what happened in Ireland. A Priest from the UK comments:
Ten years ago the great discussion was should the emphasis in the Church be on the local Church pushed by Kaspar or on the Universal Church pushed by Ratzinger.It strikes me that so much of the Irish problem stems from its emphasis on the local Church. Willie Walsh, possibly the most pastoral bishop in Ireland, infamously said he threw everything from Rome into the wastebin. One of the criticism of the bishops in the Pope’s letter is that they didn’t follow canonical procedures, the accusations against the young Cardinal Brady imposing oaths of silence on children seems to suggest law being made up on the hoof by local bishops.

Now if Catholics, including some progressives that are screaming the loudest, think that Canon law should be amended to give the Vatican ultimate VETO power over these cases well fine. Are they suggesting that? It is not clear. As is noted in the Get Religion piece at the end

Meanwhile, would the Times want to see the fine details of canon law crushed by an all-powerful papacy if, let’s say, the accused priest was a prominent progressive theologian at a major progressive American university? Or would the Times, at that point, want to see the powers of the local bishop honored?
Just asking.

I am actually going to be touching on this more. It appears that to handle this problem the powers of the Papacy will have to be enhanced greatly. I am going to be curious to see the reaction to that!!!