Quote:“If [clerics] engage in a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of sixteen, or engage in adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, [or] incest with blood-relatives or affines in the first degree, they are suspended, declared infamous, and are deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed.”

Quote:11.Since, however, in dealing with these causes, more than usual care and concern must be shown that they be treated with the utmost confidentiality, and that, once decided and the decision executed, they are covered by permanent silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 February 1867, No. 14), all those persons in any way associated with the tribunal, or knowledgeable of these matters by reason of their office, are bound to observe inviolably the strictest confidentiality, commonly known as the secret of the Holy Office, in all things and with all persons, under pain of incurring automatic excommunication, ipso facto and undeclared, reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, excluding even the Sacred Penitentiary. Ordinaries are bound by this same law, that is, in virtue of their own office; other personnel are bound in virtue of the oath which they are always to swear before assuming their duties; and, finally, those delegated, questioned or informed [outside the tribunal], are bound in virtue of the precept to be imposed on them in the letters of delegation, inquiry or information, with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure.

Quote:71. The term crimen pessimum [“the foulest crime”] is here understood to mean any external obscene act, gravely sinful, perpetrated or attempted by a cleric in any way whatsoever with a person of his own sex.

72. Everything laid down up to this point concerning the crime of solicitation is also valid, with the change only of those things which the nature of the matter necessarily requires, for the crimen pessimum, should some cleric (God forbid) happen to be accused of it before the local Ordinary, except that the obligation of denunciation [imposed] by the positive law of the Church [does not apply] unless perhaps it was joined with the crime of solicitation in sacramental confession. In determining penalties against delinquents of this type, in addition to what has been stated above, Canon 2359, §2 is also to be taken into consideration.

73. Equated with the crimen pessimum, with regard to penal effects, is any external obscene act, gravely sinful, perpetrated or attempted by a cleric in any way with pre-adolescent children [impuberes] of either sex or with brute animals (bestialitas).

• In 1962, Crimens Solicitationis was reissued, and it was later reintroduced under Secretaire Continaire in 1982.
  
  
• In 2001, Pope John Paul II lifted some of the restrictions on strict secrecy for bishops in the U.S. and Europe, allowing them to report to law enforcement “if required” by law.
  
  
• In 2019, Pope Francis somewhat lifted this requirement so that bishops could report to law enforcement anywhere in the world “if required.” However, secret agreements may remain as have for the last 100 years.
  
  
• In 2021 – canon law has changed once again – but problems remain.
  

Quote:Can. 1321 §1: “No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.”

Quote:“The matter of imputability is of fundamental importance in considering each of these offences, and not least the third mentioned above [c. 1395-2, child abuse]. Before imposing any penalty for such an offence, the ecclesiastical authority must be morally certain that there has been an external violation of the law which is gravely imputable in the sense explained above at Can. 1321 §1. Among the factors which may seriously diminish imputability in such cases is paedophilia. This is described as ‘the act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with pre-pubertal children as a repeatedly preferred or exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement’. Those who have studied this matter in detail have concluded that proven paedophiles are often subject to urges and impulses which are in effect beyond their control.”

“When the facts of a particular case are examined carefully, it may well emerge that the cleric did indeed commit a sexual offence, or a number of them, with a minor; as such, he may be liable to punishment by the criminal law of the State; nevertheless, because of the influence of paedophilia, he may not be liable, by reason of at least diminished imputability, to any canonical penalty, or perhaps to only a mild penalty, to a formal warning or reproof, or to a penal remedy.”  (Canon Law: Letter and Spirit by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, pg. 805) [emphasis added]

Quote:Can. 1341: “The Ordinary is to start a judicial or an administrative procedure for the imposition or the declaration of penalties only when he perceives that neither by fraternal correction nor reproof, nor by any method of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored and the offender reformed.”

Quote:“This opening canon voices an essential element in the philosophy of the Church concerning the application of penalties – a philosophy given its initial thrust by Pope Pius XII, and subsequently endorsed by Vat. II which itself introduced a new outlook and a new spirit into the penal law of the Church. This canon stresses two major principles of the revised penal law: restraint in the use of penalties, and discretion in their application.

In a situation where a person has behaved in a reprehensible fashion, the law urges caution: penalties are to be imposed only as a last resort. When the Ordinary is made aware of such behaviour, he is to seek to redress the situation by fraternal correction or by a more formal reproof, or by some other means of pastoral care. He is obliged to explore every reasonable measure whereby, without having recourse to penal action, a satisfactory pastoral resolution may be found. To ignore this obligation would in many cases be to run the risk of achieving none of the three objectives listed in the closing words of this canon.

Should all other efforts to repair scandal, restore justice and reform the offender fail to produce the desired effect, then and only then may the Ordinary institute a formal procedure (judicial or administrative) for the imposition or declaration of the appropriate penalty.

It is also to be noted that, should a formal judicial penal procedure be selected – as indeed, on occasion, it may have to be – the outcome will no longer be within the control of the Ordinary: it automatically transfers to the (normally) collegiate tribunal entrusted with the case. (see Can. 1425 §1 2°, §2) (Canon Law: Letter and Spirit by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, pg. 770)

• Bishops had been forced to maintain silence regarding a priest accused of abuse, according to the document Crimen Sollicitations. While many of the restrictions have been lifted in this regard, there is still enough room for manipulation within the law to maintain silence, even after a priest is found to be guilty.
  
  
• Canon 1321 §1 makes it nearly impossible to punish or remove from ministry a priest who abuses a child, but is found to be under the uncontrollable impulses of pedophilia.
  
  
• This is reinforced by Can. 1341, which stresses the importance of “rehabilitation” over punishment for those who commit deeds as wicked as the rape of children.
  

1. Guilty & admitted child abusers can and do remain in “private ministry” and in charge of children within the United States (see case of Fr. Jim Holtz, 2002-2019 here and here).
   
   
2. The Charter does not require United States dioceses to conduct criminal background checks of foreign priests, allowing sex abusers to be imported.
   
   
3. The Charter does not require United States dioceses to require that clerics use their true names when in ministry (see case of Arackal, 2018).
   
   
4. The Charter only applies to the United States, so convicted sex abuser clerics can simply be transferred to a new diocese globally to offend again (see case of Fr. Luk Delft here and here).
   
   
5. The Charter does not eliminate the explicit protections that protect pedophiles and other perverts from laicization (removal from the priesthood).
   
   
6. The Charter excludes sexual abuse against adults. Even abusers of priests can remain priests and in “private” ministry (see case of Inglot).
   
   
7. The review board is unable to investigate or verify if the information provided to them is complete or true, making their rulings entirely dependent on what the diocesan attorney provides them. (Example)
   
   
8. The Bishop can disregard the advice of the review board or direct it not to review a particular case, as it is only a consultative body and serves at the leisure of the bishop. (Example)
   

Quote:Father Epiney passed away quietly in his house in Riddes [Switzerland] on January 15, 2022. He is a priest who has just left this vale of tears to join his Master. The world without God will ignore it, but it was great in the history of the last fight that the militant Church is now waging; his vocation was revealed to him mysteriously by a Capuchin priest when he was only a child. He was the savior of many priestly souls in danger but above all the faithful friend of Archbishop Lefebvre ... He went through and endured all the storms, vexations, vicissitudes and betrayals. He also refused to be silent in the face of the rallying of the SSPX and the spirit of compromise which was that of a large number of priests of this work. 

One Cardinal's opinion: