Priest’s suspension by Vatican due to charge of `sexual abuse of minor’

Daijiworld
January 14, 2015

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=290349

Bengaluru, Jan 14: The suspension of the Bangalore Archdiocesan priest Simon Bartholomeo by Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in barring the priest from exercising ``the priestly ministry in public,’’ turns to be a far grave Canonical offence as the girl, whom he was accused of raping and impregnating and helped in her getting an abortion, was a minor when the alleged offence took place.

The priest was acquitted by Tumkur’s Second Additional District and Sessions Court, as all the seven prosecution witnesses including the victim, her parents and grandmother had turned``hostile’’ and the prosecution was unable to ``prove beyond a reasonable doubt’’ that accused had ``intercourse with (the victim) forcibly’’ and had ``intercourse from time to time by (falsely) promising to marry her’’ and had ``committed criminal intimidation of murdering (the victim) if she tells about him and asking her to put the blame on somebody else.’’

Thus, in the eyes of the civil court, which tried the case under Sections 376, 507 and 417 of Indian Penal Code and delivered the judgement on June 17, 2010, the accused was acquitted of the charge brought against him. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish following the seven witnesses, including the victim and her parents, turning hostile that the ``accused had committed rape forcibly and against her consent and continued to have intercourse with her, with a promise to marrying her and the consequent pregnancy and the prosecution has failed to prove even the criminal intimidation alleged.’’

Though most of the Catholics and even non-Catholics attribute the tough action by the Vatican’s highest body, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CFD) dealing with cases of sexual abuses of minors perpetrated by clerics, to the reformist zeal of the present Pope Francis, who has caught the imagination of the faithful as well as non-Catholics and the secular media, it is evident that the Catholic Church has been following stringent steps to check such abuses, especially against minors.

To appreciate the situation better, it is necessary to recapitulate the basic facts: The Catholic girl from Kunigal in Tumkur, who belongs to the St Rita’s Parish, was aged 17 years at the time the alleged rape and subsequent sexual abuses by the priest took place. The first incident of the rape, as per the complaint lodged with the Kunigal, took place was on August 15, 2005 and the date of birth of the girl as per the records is March 31, 1988.

As per the case file accessed by Daijiworld, the complaint was lodged by the girl on January 30, 2008, which inter-alia claimed that the alleged rape by the priest was committed on August 15, 2005 and the intimate sexual relations continued till November 30, 2007. The girl, in her complaint to the Kunigal police had claimed that she used to have nausea and vomiting in August 2006 and subsequently found that she was pregnant. The girl claimed that the priest with the help of his associates, had taken her to Bangalore and got an abortion done on her, and she was promised that the priest would marry her and warned not to disclose about the sexual relations or abortion to anybody with the threat of death.

Around the time of lodging the complaint with the Kunigal police, which created quite a scandal as the local media reported the incident with gusto as it involved a Catholic priest, the girl and the parents also met the Archbishop and formally lodged a similar complaint seeking justice. However, during the trial, the girl denied that she had lodged a complaint and contended that a ``relative came to her grandmother’s residence in January 2008 and made her to sign a written document.’’

She, however, confirmed that the signature in the complaint lodged with the police on January 30, 2008 as hers but made it clear that she was not aware of the contents or who wrote the complaint and made her to sign it. She also denied all the charges purportedly made in the complaint, which resulted in the prosecution terming her ``hostile witness.’’ The parents and grandmother too turned similarly ``hostile.’’

But as the girl was a minor at the time, when she and her parents met him, the Archbishop of Bangalore had no alternative but to look into the issue and take it up with the CFD as the Vatican has laid down the rule that the Diocesan Bishop has the responsibility ``of assuring the common good of the faithful and, especially, the protection of children and of the young,’’ and ``give an appropriate response to the cases of sexual abuse of minors by clerics in his Diocese.’’

``Such a response entails the development of procedures suitable for assisting the victims of such abuse, and also for educating the ecclesial community concerning the protection of minors. A response will also make provision for the implementation of the appropriate canon law, and, at the same time, allow for the requirements of civil law,’’ as per the official guidelines of the CDF procedures concerning sexual abuse allegations.

The applicable of the Church is `MotuProprioSacramentorumSanctitatisTutela’ (MPSST) of April 30, 2001, granted by Pope John Paul II, together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, updated on May 21, 2010 by Pope Benedict XVI, mandates the local Diocese to ``investigate every allegation of abuse of a minor by a cleric’’ and ``if the allegation has a semblance of truth, the case is referred to the CDF and civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.’’

The canonical measures applied in dealing with a cleric found guilty of sexual abuse of a minor are generally of two kinds: 1) measures which completely restrict public ministry or at least exclude the cleric from any contact with minors. These measures can be reinforced with a penal precept; 2) ecclesiastical penalties, among which the most grave is the dismissal from the clerical state, says the official Vatican website.

A careful reading of the various doctrines, norms and guidelines of the CDF and the provisions of the Code of Canon Law suggest that the Church takes a serious view of the grave charges of sexual abuse of minors by clerics and barring the priests concerned from exercising ``the priestly ministry in public’’ or celebrating mass, participating in the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) and other priestly duties is the first step and in the event of being held guilty ``both judicial and administrative penal processes can condemn a cleric to a number of canonical penalties, the most serious of which is dismissal from the clerical state.

``In very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming, the CDF may choose to take the case directly to the Pope to issue a decree of "ex officio" dismissal from the clerical state. There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree,’’ according to the website of the Holy See.