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.