MANILA (PHILIPPINES)
Manila Times [Manila, Philippines]
February 3, 2025
By Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino
RECENTLY, an American group that apparently has taken upon itself the task of “avenging angel” for the victims of clerical misconduct, particularly the molestation of minors, took the Philippine bishops to task “for refusing to be accountable.”
Alleging that priests who had been charged with offenses involving minors were either reassigned to other parishes or, worse, returned to the same environment within which the offenses were alleged to have been committed. This allegation — not the first time it is made, to be sure, but revived every time the Catholic Church is targeted for attack because of the positions it takes or its advocacies — begs the question: To whom should bishops be accountable?
In the theology of the Church, bishops head “local churches” — dioceses or archdioceses. They are the agents as well as the representatives of the hierarchically organized community called the Catholic Church. If this theological point is clear, then it is a logical corollary that they are accountable to the very community of which they are representatives. And this is the reason that the Holy See, particularly through the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, has established protocols for cases involving priests charged with abusing minors. And Rome is relentless in demanding accountability. Bishops are obligated to report, to send documents and to answer queries that emanate from the Holy See.
Bishops are likewise accountable to State authorities when a crime is alleged. After all, like all citizens or residents of the Philippines, priests are subject, without qualification or exception, to the country’s penal laws, and, with respect to the protection of vulnerable sectors, they are rather severe. It has to be made clear that the correct legal characterization of the relation between bishop and priest is not one of employment. A priest is not an employee of the bishop — not only because the theological nature of the Sacrament of Order militates against this characterization but because the common tests of employer-employee relations are not present. In the Ordination Rite, the priest — who receives the Sacrament of Order in the rank of presbyter — is the “co-worker” of the bishop in caring for God’s people in the diocese. As such, it is more legally correct to classify the relationship as one of agency. The priest is the legal agent of the bishop. While the bishop must, therefore, answer for the priests’ exercise of their powers of agency, the bishop cannot be held to account for those acts that go beyond the powers bestowed on the priest, and certainly, molesting minors is not one of the appurtenances of agency! But because the agent is subject to the control of the principal — the bishop — then the latter has to see to the availability of the responding priest to prosecutors who conduct the preliminary investigation and for trial, should the case progress to trial. Furthermore, the bishop decides whether to deal with the matter administratively or to use the judicial system of the Church. In any case, there is a system of accountability — and it has been used with regularity.
The whining group is apparently disappointed that courts have rarely convicted priests and sent them to the slammer. What, then, is its conclusion? That judicial processes have been railroaded? That priests have been insulated from punishment? Would it not be more logical to conclude that notwithstanding often highly sensationalized reports of wrongdoing, the accusations have not been proven in accordance with the exacting standard of the Constitution — “proof beyond reasonable doubt”? And if this group complains that the standard is too high, it will be well to be reminded that even under the US Constitution, as well as the laws of developed legal systems, this is the requisite standard of proof.
Apparently, what this group laments is what it perceives to be the unwillingness of bishops to cooperate with reporters and so-called “investigative journalists” in bringing these cases to the public via the media, whether mainstream or social platforms. In the first place, when charges are filed with the prosecutor and when the criminal information is filed in court, the matter is open to public scrutiny, as the documents are all public documents. In this respect, allegations of concealment are specious. But to require the bishops to forward complaints and replies, charges and rebuttals to the press is to urge a requirement that has neither foundation in law nor public policy. In fact, anti-clerical, anti-Catholic groups, which are very frequently at the forefront of witch-hunts against priests, are known to be particularly vicious and merciless in excoriating those charged with offenses. But when a priest has been publicly shamed, his reputation tarnished by allegations of prurient conduct and his name associated with the crimes with which he is charged, how does he seek vindication, the redress of this wrong and the redemption of his honor when the charges turn out to be unsubstantiated or, worse, fabricated — for such situations are not unknown.
Under our present laws, all it takes to charge a priest with the most shameful of offenses is an affidavit filed with the police. And all it takes for the police to file the case with the prosecutor is a showing of “verisimilitude” — Does it look like there is a case? And when the prosecutor must make a determination as to whether to file the information, he asks himself whether there is probable cause, whether it is probable that the crime was committed and that the respondent priest is probably guilty thereof — thresholds that certainly are not difficult to reach, in effect, no more than a reasoned conjecture! I am by no means claiming that all charges are fabricated, but neither am I willing to admit that all are veridical. Thank God for an enlightened Department of Justice that has advised its prosecutors through the necessary guidelines that when there is no moral certitude of conviction, the information should not be filed.
It is one thing to demand accountability — and, to the best of my knowledge, most bishops have fulfilled the requirements of accountability in regard to erring priests. It is quite another to demand that bishops provide media with material for salacious reporting and the shaming of priests even before their guilt has been established in accordance with the established rules of evidence.
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph