Helena Dalli
Protecting the vulnerable
Presumably asked to react to the plethora of comments on The Times' front page report Child Abuse Allegations Made Against 45 Maltese Priests In 11 Years, retired Judge Victor Caruana Colombo said that "it would be useless for the Church to report priests involved in sexual abuse cases to the police because no criminal action could be taken without the victim's consent". Nothing is written in stone.
That used to be the case with domestic violence too, until we changed it. The police have to prosecute once they have a report even if submitted by neighbours or relatives. Abuse that takes place in the privacy of the home is not exempt from criminal prosecution once exposed. The identity of the victim can be protected. Evidence can be heard behind closed doors. The victim need not face the perpetrator; IT makes video-evidencing possible.
Thus, if the Catholic Church really wanted to attack the child abuse cancer more than it wanted to protect its priests there are ways of prosecuting perpetrators criminally without harming victims.
Why should it be acceptable that a priest child abuser is treated differently from a lay one? Is it just for the former to be defrocked while the latter is sent to jail for the same crime? Why is the information regarding the cases of priest paedophiles not handed over to the police? In an interview given by Mgr Charles J. Scicluna, the Vatican's chief sex abuse "prosecutor" points out: "In some countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal culture, but also in France, the bishops - if they become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside of the seal of the sacrament of confession - are required to report them to the civil authorities... our position in these cases is to respect the law." This may also serve as a more effective deterrent.
Another observation on the issue of priests and paedophilia is that of human nature and the suppression of sexuality. Celibacy goes against human nature. Christopher Cardinal Schönborn points out that causes of sex abuse by priests could be found in priest celibacy and priest training. This can be changed, after all, compulsory celibacy is a matter of Church law and the first Pope was married.
Surely, there have been and will be arguments in favour and against the foregoing but who can truthfully say that it is right for a priest paedophile to be treated differently from a lay paedophile? Isn't this also an abuse of the authority and trust the people give the clergy?
On the second point, regarding celibacy, Oscar Cardinal Maradiaga says he doesn't understand "that there can be a relationship between priestly celibacy and paedophile cases... because abuse takes place where there is no celibacy". Of course it does but where there is repression, the problem is compounded. As Desmond Morris puts it in The Naked Ape: "If either males or females cannot for some reason obtain sexual access to their opposite members, they will find sexual outlets in other ways."
Child abuse is an unforgivable crime in my book. Is it acceptable to protect a priest who has committed murder? Why then is it so difficult to understand that the prosecution of a priest who has abused a vulnerable child and ruined his or her life must be treated in the same way as the priest who killed a person? Wouldn't the paedophile priest have marked the child's life indelibly and possibly ruined it?
Where does the government come into all this? It must certainly have a clear policy on the welfare of children in care. There are nuns and priests who do sterling work in children's homes. But when you speak to them they tell you that they mostly depend on the generosity of benefactors. The final responsibility for a secure livelihood must rest with the government if we are to treat these children justly. This even out of fairness towards the religious staff who daily toil in these institutions and who, like everyone else, get tired and emotionally drained, especially in cases where they have an extra heavy workload.
It does not make sense that, with a welfare safety net in place, the government continues to increasingly put the onus on the work of volunteers and the donations of the benevolent to give a decent life to these children.
Charity towards these children is reminiscent of Dickensian times when welfare states did not exist. In modern societies, care for these children is the remit of the government's social policy. The work of religious orders, the voluntary sector and donations should act as a support to government welfare and the people working in this sector must not be the prime responsibility takers.
Political parties must have a policy on children in care. Governments are in duty bound to take responsibility for them. If we really are the caring society we like to believe we are, their welfare must be funded by our taxes.
Unless these three issues are tackled - the provision of information on priest/nun child abusers to the police for criminal prosecution; celibacy and its possible link to paedophilia; and state protection for children in care - it will be difficult to curb the abuse of the innocent.
Dr Dalli is shadow minister for the public service and government investment.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
R. Cucciardi
Apr 6th 2010, 08:44
@ E Muscat.
I think that Dr Dalli is very clear on what the government can do, that is why I do not understand it when Mr/Ms Muscat writes "A good article overall,but with few specific solutions to the problems rightly raised." Dr Dalli is saying that these children should be the primary responsibility of government and not of church orphanages. Our taxes should also go for the welfare of these children and they must not be left to live on chairity and the good hearts of priests and nuns, amongst whom there are also paedophiles. This is not Victorian England but supposedly modern Malta. If you look around in Europe, most countries have safe government structures where these children are taken care of and looked after by professionals. As I understand Dr Dalli's article, that is what she is proposing.
E.Muscat
Apr 5th 2010, 20:47
A good article overall,but with few specific solutions to the problems rightly raised.The only solution is ,unfortunately, that the power of the Church have to be further hemmed in.I say 'unfortunately' because the Church overall caring organisation but should be realising that truth and transparency is the way forward,even if the Church is crucified along the way:the Galileo debacle should have been an eye opener!
The Church should give up its celibacy and condom condemnation positions.It should consolidate its condemnation of abortion and divorce which confuse and destroy our society.
Celibacy is unnatural and condom use is a must in this 'free' world and both of these restrictions are Church ordained not God's Law.
St.Paul was right when he said that marrying was better than burning in hell:however, in the times and after priestly celibacy was imposed he might have said,marriage is better than buggery!
Remember that there were popes who had children by mistresses.
M. Fsadni
Apr 5th 2010, 15:22
@ William Flynn. Dr Dalli did not say that priestly celibacy is within the government's remit, she implies that it is an issue which must be discussed within the church and in fact cites the contrasting ideas of two Catholic Church Cardinals on the matter. She then goes on to quote a social anthropologist, Desmond Morris who says in The Naked Ape that "If either males or females cannot for some reason obtain sexual access to their opposite members, they will find sexual outlets in other ways." Dr Dalli speaks about the government's remit when she mentions the responsibility for orphans and abandoned children, in that the state must see to their welfare, and the help of volunteers and the religous in this sector should be optional and not the other way round.
William P Flynn
Apr 6th 2010, 03:24
I understood all that, trust me.
I have no political axe to grind either way but merely asked what the opposition might be doing about this despicable situation now and what they might likely do if they get power.
There isn't even the slightest glimmer of a hope that the present PN administration is likely to do anything anytime soon as they are the Catholic church's Party.
Paul Cave
Apr 5th 2010, 13:25
"if the Catholic Church really wanted to attack the child abuse cancer more than it wanted to protect its priests..." is the real bone of contention here, and it's becoming clear where the church's priorities have lain previously. It remains to be seen if the current Pope will do the decent thing and enforce the rules he himself came up with in a previous job on this very point!
Louise Vella
Apr 5th 2010, 12:58
Truth is sex offending priests were moved from parish to parish, and those in authority looked away while further children were sexually abused. The Church switched paedophile priests from parish to parish undetected by the unsuspecting faithful.
The real scandal isn’t predator priests. It’s complicit bishops. After decades of stunning and hurtful scandal, Catholic bishops can’t bring themselves to admit they are the root cause of these crimes. History will judge all of us if we do not bring this institution to account for the suffering of children.
Louise Vella
Apr 5th 2010, 12:47
Child sex crimes and cover ups are a criminal matter, not a church matter. We urge the Maltese government to pursue investigations, and not let Catholic officials try to handle this “in house.”
Whey one knowingly allows a child to be put in harm’s way, that person is culpable and should be held accountable before the law. What the bishops did was morally reprehensible, morally corrupt and morally despicable.
William P Flynn
Apr 5th 2010, 12:06
I agree with all you've said. Leaving out priestly celibacy, (which besides being a joke, is not within the remit of governments), what can you do now regarding the passing of laws removing of the church influence from our Constitution? What can you do about the passing of laws ensuring the removal of the ability of the church to avoid informing secular police authorities about the incidence of clerical paedophilia?
What about a system of personal bond guarantees by the bishops every time a priest is transferred to a new locality that there are no complaints of paedophilia pending?
Action speaks louder than words. Will PL be any different than the PN in these matters? Or will it be business as usual for the recidivous church?
B Agius
Apr 5th 2010, 11:54
Pretty good article - with some clear cut and common sense attitudes. As Ms Dalli is part of the PL, I hope this means that she can turn her ideas into new policies for the PL for people to consider at the next election. Malta surely can do with some new ideas that are in turn enshrined into law. Hopefully we can eventually join the progressive liberal world on some fronts and not continue living in the same anachronistic and medieval current modes!!
Louise Vella
Apr 5th 2010, 11:50
I congratulate Hon Dalli for being the first Maltese Member of Parliament to speak out against the scandal of priest sexual abuse in Malta. Fact is, Maltese paedophile priests continue to roam our streets and no one really knows where these predators are, how many victims they have left behind or how many more will suffer.
I urge her to push the government to set up an independent Commission like the one set up in Dublin, to enquire if similar criminal behaviour has occurred, or is occurring, also in Malta by the Catholic Church.
I also urge her to push for a law to impose mandatory reporting to civil authorities by institutions, including the Church, of any person suspected of child abuse within the institution and to prosecute officials of organizations or institutions for covering up sexual abuse of children.
The criminal code should be amended to allow the executive police to institute criminal proceedings against alleged offenders ex officio, rather than waiting for the victims or their guardians to file a complaint. In this manner the Church can no longer conveniently hide behind legal loopholes.