Francis decrees Vatican child protections

Yesterday, Pope Francis issued a motu proprio (papal executive decree, apparently available only in Italian at the time of this posting) establishing rules for the protection of children and vulnerable adults in Vatican City and Vatican diplomatic missions around the world.  While the Vatican and its embassy presence constitute only tiny patches of the worldwide presence of the church, this decree is considered significant because it is Francis's first official act on this topic following last month's Vatican summit on the protection of children.  While many of the key provisions will sound familiar to Americans, there are some interesting differences.

Gerard O'Connell in America has the story:

The Vatican published all three texts—the motu proprio, the new legislation for the penal code of the VCS and the guidelines—today, March 29, together with an explanatory note by Andrea Tornielli (editorial director of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication) on the significance and importance of the texts. Their publication can be seen as the first concrete follow-up to the summit meeting of the presidents of bishops’ conferences from around the world held in the Vatican in February. 

All three texts apply only to the Vatican City State and those who are bound by its norms and legislation. While a great number of priests and women and men religious work in this small state, there are only a small number of children. 

These texts take into account the most advanced international norms on the question of the protection of minors. These include the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Holy See ratified in 1990, and the Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child regarding the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, which the Holy See ratified as a party to this international document in 2001.

Among the provisions of the document:

• The Vatican should be a safe community for children and vulnerable adults, with measures  taken to prevent abuse
• Everyone has a responsibility to report instances of abuse
• The Vatican authorities will prosecute instances of abuse
• Victims and their families have a right to be listened to by church authorities
• Counseling and pastoral care are to be made available to victims and their families
• Those accused of abuse are to be accorded the presumption of innocence, and are entitled to a fair trial; if convicted, the sentence is to be proportional to the crime
• A 20 year statute of limitations applies to instances of abuse; if the victim is a minor, the 20-year clock starts ticking when the minor turns 18
• Training programs are to be established to create a culture of safety for minors

These provisions should sound similar, if not identical in all respects, to the current regime of civil and church laws and practices in the United States.  But it's important to note that in much of the world, the church has not lived through the crisis as long and intensely as it has in the US.  On this issue, the US probably is ahead of the curve.  I interpret this motu proprio as Francis seeking, not only to shore up the protections for children and vulnerable adults within the Vatican, but also to establish a model for the rest of the world to adopt.  Were bishops conferences and civil authorities around the world to respond accordingly, it would bring the world more or less into line with the standards that prevail (in theory) in the United States today.  

In addition to the provisions listed above, there are a couple of noteworthy differences between what Francis has decreed and the rules that apply in the United States today:

• The motu proprio applies to the abuse, not only of minors, but also of vulnerable adults.  Per O'Connell, a "vulnerable adult" is defined as an adult "“is in a state of infirmity, of physical and psychic deficiency, or de facto deprived of personal freedom, even occasionally,” or who cannot resist or understand the nature of the abuse."
• Francis does not adopt a zero-tolerance policy for abusers.  Instead, a convicted abuser "is removed from his duties and, at the same time, he is offered adequate support for psychological and spiritual rehabilitation, also for the purpose of social reintegration".  (This text is quoted from the Google Translate translation of the Italian original of Francis's motu proprio.)

Vanessa Romo at NPR sought reactions from victims' advocates; those are by turns critical, skeptical and measured:  

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of Bishop Accountability, a watchdog group that monitors clergy sexual abuse cases around the world, said the Vatican's attempt to frame the legislation as an example for others to emulate is "disingenuous." 

"The pope could force the church to permanently remove all guilty clerics. He is their superior and he doesn't need to model for them or coax them into following his example. It is reinforcing this fiction that the Holy See's control over clergy is limited to those who are citizens of the city-state," Doyle said.

Doyle also was unimpressed by the absence of a zero-tolerance policy.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) also issued a statement in response to the motu proprio.  As might be expected, SNAP continues to doubt the church's ability to self-police.  However, it also found some things to praise:

But there are good things in these new policies as well. For one, we are glad to see that the Church is acknowledging the abuse of vulnerable adults. Abuse at any age is devastating and there is no doubt that the abuse of adults is more widespread than can be imagined.

We are also glad to see the inclusion of requirements for background checks and training on sexual abuse prevention, as well as the provisions aimed at ensuring that victims and whistle blowers do not face retaliation. These are positive steps forward.

SNAP ends its statement with some words of caution that the Vatican would do well to heed:

But policy change on paper is meaningless unless actions are also taken in real life. If children are to be safer, we need to set a higher bar and demand reform that makes a real difference. 

My views on this development are as follows:

• On its face, these new laws and guidelines seem to be a solution in search of a problem, insofar as, as O'Connell notes, the new laws apply only to Vatican City, which has very few children residing within it.  However, its applicability to diplomatic missions is important, as there have been issues with Vatican diplomats allegedly committing abuse in other countries
• I agree with SNAP that the extension of these provisions to vulnerable adults is a good thing.  The US should emulate this immediately.  I'd note, too, that the definition of "vulnerable adult" could be broadened considerably, or a new category could be added to those of minor and vulnerable adult, to encompass other victims of clerical abuse: for example, the seminarians allegedly abused by Cardinal McCarrick, and adult women or men who have had sex, consensual or not, with clergy who should have been providing them with pastoral care.  Any adult or child under the church's pastoral care should be considered vulnerable 
• I agree with Doyle that Francis's alternative to a one-strike policy makes alarm bells go off.  The United States tried treatment and reintegration all through the 1960s, 70s and 80s.  It failed spectacularly.  I don't know of a reason to suppose that it would be more successful today
• There is a sense in which Doyle is right that Francis has the formal authority to issue a binding set of decrees that would apply, not only to the Vatican, but to the entire Catholic Church worldwide.  Perhaps that day will come.  But I believe there is some wisdom to Francis's customary approach of seeking to bring the church (especially the bishops and cardinals) along with him, rather than executing a naked power play - even if his approach makes reforms go more slowly.  Our experience in the United States has not been a lack of principles and laws; it has been a large-scale and sinful flouting of standards and laws that already existed.  Making another law does no good if those to whom it applies aren't converted to obey it