Talk:Crimen sollicitationis

Orphan

This is a requested page--it's also an orphan. I'm going to link back from Roman Catholic Church sex abuse allegations just to deorphan it, but there may be better parents available.Vicki Rosenzweig

Animals in the confessional?

On page 23, par. 73, in the English translation, the document states: "To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)." In par. 71 it is noted that, "Those things that have been stated concerning the crime of solicitation up to this point are also valid (...) for the worst crime (...)."

This is a bit too Catholic for me to fully understand, but it appears that the document deals with more than just crimes of solicitation, or are "brute animals" admitted to the confessional? My interpretation is that the same rules of secrecy govern child molestation and sodomy.—Eloquence 00:52, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

It appears under a subheading about solicitation in the confessional so it needs to be understood in that context. And while "brute animals" don't go into the confessional, their owners do; it is talking about the solicitation of owners of animals to allow their animals to be used. And it doesn't talk about sodomy but sex with youths of either sex, which is different. FearÉIREANN

Secrecy

Can anyone clarify this paragraph?

The document calls for such cases to be handled in secret, and extends that secrecy to the document itself. The document imposes secrecy even upon victims of sexual abuse. Extreme penalties for violations of secrecy, including excommunication that can only be dismissed by the Pope himself, are imposed.

It seems to suggest that victims may be excommunicated (which can only be dismissed by the pope) if they don't keep what has happened to them and/or the actions that have been taken against the perpetrators secret. I assume this is not the case but who knows given the way the Catholic church handled things. Nil Einne 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the appropriate excerpt;

"11. Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe inviolably. Indeed by this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the force of their own proper duty. The other helpers from the power of their oath which they they must always take before they undertake their duties. And these, then, are delegated, are interpolated, and are informed in their absence by means of the precept in the letters of delegation, interpellation, information, imposing upon them with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure.

- Alison^✍ 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

secrecy

Art.11 deals with secrecy of judges and has nothing to do with victims. See the new "Scope" paragraph for the real document content. Pinea 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation errors

Most of the above discussions are because the English translation posted by cbsnews is full of errors. Does anyone have a valid translation to be appended? Pinea 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Roman Catholic Church / Churches

Given that Crimen sollicitations is an 'updated' version of an even older Vatican document 'Sacramentum Poenitentiae', perhaps this article should have a link to the Roman Catholic Church page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.54.3 (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

=Where are the links/references?

It says:

"The document thus imposed absolute secrecy on the subject matter of the trial, even after the trial had ended and its verdict, favourable or unfavourable, had been put into effect. An oath of secrecy was to be taken not only by the members of the tribunal but also by the person or persons denouncing the priest, by the witnesses, and by the accused priest himself, who was free to discuss the matter only with his defence counsel (13)."

But where is the reference (#13)? I can't find it anywhere on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.104.89 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable"

Can a translation be called reliable when, in the very first paragraph, it gives "by writing whether then or after [the note has been read]" as the equivalent of "per scripturam aut tunc aut post legendam", which means simply "by a note to be read either then or later"? In fact, the translation is somewhat lacking in both accuracy and clarity. Lima (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Severe translation errors

The English translation arbitrarily translates the latin word "causa" (=trial) as "subject matter of the trial". The difference is substantial as according to a proper translation secrecy concerns trial only (including anything that happened during the trial, such as a confession by the accused priest or by possible false accusers). NO SECRECY ABOUT THE CRIME IS IMPOSED. Moreover the translation of the words "propter eorum officium" is omitted, thereby falsely implying that the secrecy (as well as the possible excommunication) is applicable to everybody. These are just two of the many errors of the translation appended to this article, and here reworded but not adequately corrected (by the way the translation was provided by the lawyers of one side; it's a POV English Translation, not a Private English Translation as stated in the External Links).

I recommend the following, maybe pedestrian but more faithful translation (so everybody can easily check word by word):

As, truly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials, it is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of its office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called "the secrecy of the Holy Office") in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic ("latae sententiae") excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary

For better clarity I repeat the initial most controversial sentence, adding to the English words the corresponding Latin ones:

As, truly,(Quoniam vero) what must be mainly taken care of and complied with (quod maiorem in modum curari et observari debet)in handling these trials (in hisce causis tractandis), it is that (illud est ut) they be managed with maximum confidentiality (eaedem secretissime peragantur) and after the verdict is declared and put into effect (et, postquam fuerint definitae et executioni iam tradite) never be mentioned again (perpetuo silentio premantur)...

Incidentally there are also two misprints in copying the Latin text.

Pinea (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pinea, but think a few retouches are necessary:

• vero is not vere; it can have an adversative meaning, as understood by the previous translator, or a confirmative one. Perhaps here the neutral in fact or assuredly is best.
• For trials, it, read trials: the subject of the verb is is what must be mainly ... (in Latin, illud quod in hisce causis ...)
• For because of its office, read because of their office (Latin, eorum)

I have taken the liberty of inserting Pinea's text, with these adjustments, into the article, also correcting the two Latin mistypings.

Pinea's good and accurate translation shows up how inexact and obscure was the translation that the journalistic fuss was about:

Pinea's (adjusted):

As, assuredly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called "the secrecy of the Holy Office") in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary.

The other translation:

Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matter because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Lima (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Further error

The comment on sectio 72 is also wrong, as again it was based on an error of the English translation appended (in which the word "excepted" has been transformed into "accepted", thereby reversing the meaning). Crimen sollicitationis doesn't change Canon Law (how could?). This error didn't exist in the text I wrote in May 2007, but was deleted on September 4, 2007. I quote it because it also includes some useful explanations:

The last section of Crimen sollicitationis (art. 71-74) deals with the application of the same procedure to other offenses. As such application is very controversial, it is now discussed in detail. Note that the text is very very short: any understanding may imply some judgemental interpretation.
1. At first any “very sinful obscene external deed perpetrated or attempted by a cleric with a person of the same sex” is conventionally defined as “worst crime” (art. 71), apparently in order to be easily but precisely mentioned in the following articles 72 and 73. The choice of the conventional name needs some explanation, as there are worse sins according to church laws. It is probably an (inaccurate) quote of St. Thomas Summa Theologica, where different sexual behaviours are simply ranked according to their distance from standard heterosexual coupling. Note, also, that in 1962, when the Vatican document was issued, homosexual sexual conduct between adults was still a criminal activity in many countries, such as UK, Germany, Spain and Australia. In the USA decriminalisation had just started in 1961 in Illinois. See LGBT rights by country.
2. Then whatever has been established for the “crime of sollicitation” is extended to the “worst crime”, but with the necessary adjustments (“mutatis tantum pro rei necessario mutandis”) (art. 72). Among the issues to be modified in order to adapt to the different nature of the offense, only one is explicitly mentioned: victims/partners and other informed persons are no more morally obliged to denounce (see item 5 above). This is because sacrilege is not involved and the church has no more the right of twisting the arm of the victims for the common good ( by the menace of excommunication).

The text involved is: Quae de crimine sollicitationis hucusque statuta sunt, valeant quoque, mutatis tantum pro rei natura necessario mutandis, pro crimine pessimo...excepta obligatione denunciationis ex lege Ecclesiae positiva, nisi forte ipsum fuerit etiam cum crimine sollicitationis in confessione sacramentali coniunctum.

The above sentence explains that the moral obligation of denouncing guilty priests based on natural law (lege Ecclesiae positiva) recalled in section 15 of Crimen sollicitationis doesn't apply to homosexuality, unless the sacrament of Penance is involved.

Pinea (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Regretfully I have difficulty this time in understanding Pinea's remark. The article comments on section 72:

Canon law imposed no legal obligation - though a moral one might exist - on anyone to denounce priests guilty of what the document Crimen sollicitationis called "crimen pessimum" ("the most evil crime"), unless these acts were linked with the sacrament of Penance. Nevertheless, the 1962 document said that the same procedure was to be used against any cleric who happened to be accused of such acts.

To me, this seems exact. Canon 904 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law imposed (or rather confirmed) a legal obligation to denounce within one month any priest who solicited sex in connection with confession. On the contrary, there was no obligation imposed by a positive law (ex lege Ecclesiae positiva – stressed in the original) to denounce a priest for homosexual acts or for solicitation, unconnected with confession, to homosexual acts, though – the text suggests – there might well be a moral obligation under natural law to denounce him. This canon 904 is quoted in section 16 and is the positive law referred to in section 15 as imposing the obligation to denounce the priest. Section 72 said that, if a priest were denounced in this way, the procedure to follow was the same as that for cases of accusations of solicitation in confession.

I see in the comment on section 72 no suggestion that Crimen sollicitationis changed canon law.

I do not understand Pinea's last paragraph above, which seems to understand as "a moral obligation based on natural law"the legal obligation arising from a positive ecclesiastical law ("obligatione denunciationis ex lege Ecclesiae positiva) – namely, the positive law in canon 904 and in Benedict XIV's document.

Doubtless the comment on section 72 could be phrased more clearly. I would do my best to edit it in line with remarks on its faults, but I would need first to understand the remarks. Lima (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of the paragraph on § 71-72 in the article is ambiguous and we simply understand it differently. It starts with the adversative Nevertheless, indicating that there is a change, therefore the confused sentence can be interpreted as if, at variance with Canon Law, the same procedure applied to sexual solicitation during Penance (and in particular the obligation of denouncing) had to be applied to worst crimes, even though unrelated to any sacrament. I understand we both agree that this is not true. Moreover "worst crime" or "most evil crime" is here a technical (almost slang) expression and should not be used or be used with adequate explanation, as it raises other issues, such as homophobia. The whole paragraph could read about: Finally Crimen sollicitationis requests that the previous cautious procedure should be followed for other important and socially controversial moral faults, such as homosexuality. In cases, however, not related to Penance §72 points out that the obligation of denouncing offending priests in order to avoid “inestimable detriment to souls” (as per §15 of Crimen sollicitationis) is not applicable (as previously established by Canon law). For what concerns last sentence of my previous comment, I read much time ago the 1741 constitution (which obviously is positive law, as you said) and I think the pope stated that his decision was based on natural law; the whole issue (natural/positive) however in somehow marginal, and not worth further discussion; I should not have raised this point.

Pinea (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The "nevertheless" meant only that, although charges of homosexual conduct were not covered by the same law that dealt with charges of solicitation in Confession, the regulations governing trials on charges of solicitation in Confession were to be applied also to trials on charges of homosexual conduct. "The previous cautious procedure" might mean some unspecified procedure followed before Crimen sollicitationis came into force: so we must indicate that the procedure in question is that laid down in Crimen sollicitationis, which, as its subtitle indicates, deals "de modo procedendi in causis sollicitationis". Crimen sollicitationis does more than "request" that this procedure be followed: it requires it to be applied. I fully agree that there is no need to use the technical term "crimen pessimum", which had been used for centuries with a precise meaning that Crimen sollicitationis spells out. For the rest, I think we should keep to what Crimen sollicitationis actually says. In particular, we should not replace the precise indications of the document (homosexuality, gravely sinful external sexual acts with prepubescent children, bestiality) with so vague a phrase as "important and socially controversial moral faults". Lima (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The new version is good! Maybe I would use the word article rather than section, as section looks to me as a longer text than an article. Think over and do as you like. Best regards Pinea (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can avoid both "section" and "article". I have made the attempt. Lima (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Major rewrite/reorganisation needed?

I note that this document is a controversial one, with some claiming it essentially constitutes a criminal conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse of children while others claim its a document that affords the accused cleric natural justice/procedural fairness and is not intended to cover up anything. If you type "Crimen sollicitationis" into Google you will see how incredibly controversial this thing is. It's therefore extra important that all claims be linked to verifiable sources as per the WP:BURDEN policy: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

It seems that the article has been authored/edited by people with a good understanding of Catholic canon law and Latin but they appear to be relying upon their own expertise only. Even if someone is the best Catholic canon lawyer in the world and the best Latin speaker, they can't edit the article and have others rely solely upon their expertise and not put in any references. It would be better for them to author an article and have it published on some respectable third party website, clearly identifying their qualifications, and then have someone else come back here and reference their article in this Wikipedia entry.

I think that each assertion needs to be referenced by pointing to the evidence that backs it up. I'd like to suggest an outline of how I believe the article should be structured.

Introduction: The name of the document and its origin and status should be made clear. I can quote a large number of articles, referencing experts in canon law and published in quality publications such as the New York Times. I think that if a non-expert like me can find that much information, others should have no problem.

The purpose of Crimen sollicitationis: This is the main part of the article. Given that the document is complex, and in a foreign language, it's essential than no one attempt to do a full analysis of the document relying upon their own personal reading of the text (which is what the article looks like at the moment). We need to give the views of experts in canon law. There are a number of experts that have spoken on the document, as well as non-experts.

We could write about the allegations of the lawyer Daniel Shea, who was the one that started making all the "smoking gun" allegations. Maybe quote him and any others who made claims about it.

Next we can quote the views of all experts. John Beal, Francis Morrisey, Ladislas Orsy and Thomas Doyle have all been quoted on the document.

Then perhaps mention the Sex Crimes and the Vatican documentary. In it Doyle appears to support the "smoking gun" theory but he later said he was misrepresented and now unequivocally disputes the idea it was designed to cover up abuse.

Finally we can talk of its sociological significance. Some have argued that although it is not an explicit policy to cover up abuse, it does show a tendency to keep everything as secret as possible and that may have had harmful consequences in terms of accountability etc.

I have a large number of reputable sources that I can use to back up these claims, but I wanted to get the feedback of others before I put in effort to make the changes.

The large number of quotes from the document itself are unnecessary for two reasons. The first is that the English translations will always be in dispute. The only English copies that are circulating are of unknown accuracy (the Church didn't produce them) and if someone is going to translate it they need to provide proof that it's accurate. The second reason we need not include all these quotes is that the important thing is is what the experts think not what us amateurs think. It would be like people editing the article on the US Constitution and rather than referring to expert's and the court's views of it, just referring to whatever that particular editor thinks it means.

Anyway, I'll finish there and wait until I get some feedback before progressing.

GuyIncognito (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The document was issued only in Latin. For its contents, nothing else can compare with the document itself as "a reliable, (by now) published source". Just as no Chinese (for instance) translations of the US Constitution can compare with the original document itself.

The one complete English translation to which the article provides a link is obviously both obscure and inaccurate, as anyone who knows Latin can see on examining it, so it is necessary for the article to provide better translations of important extracts. The English translations of these important extracts have been and probably will continue to be repeatedly improved in style and accuracy by Wikipedia editors who know Latin, and will undoubtedly, by that collaborative effort, increasingly surpass the inaccurate effort given in the link.

By all means make a section on what various people have written or said around the document, but keep the account of what is actually in the document separate and exact. Much of what has been said is largely based on an inaccurate translation or on what others have said about the document.

Or have you found something inexact in the article's account of the document's contents? Then please draw attention to the supposed inaccuracy, so that it can be remedied. Lima (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My view is the following:

Crimen sollicitationis and the Controversies about Crimen Sollicitationis are two separate issues, which would probably be better dealt with by two separate wikipedia articles. Personally I don't care about controversies and wiki articles about them.

As far as the document is concerned, the facts are:

a) There is only one primary source, which is the Latin text.

b) There is, to my knowledge, only one secondary source which is the draft English translation prepared by Thomas Doyle. I call it a draft because there are many sentences that seems to have no meaning at all and there are many question marks, where the translator was unsure how to interpret the text. These are facts that everybody can check and I think that it would be more correct to state explicitly in the article that it is only a draft, but I would like somebody else to write it after forming his own independent opinion. Please do it.

c) There are plenty of tertiary sources, which seems, however, all be based on the secondary source only.

Personally I had eight years of school aimed at reading Latin classics. Even though this was the first time I read a church document I found it much easier than, say. reading Cicero. The only reason why I read it, was because I was unable to figure out the meaning of the English translation. When reading (about one year ago), I was very antagonized because I felt that the draft translation is very deceptive in many crucial points. Hence I provided my own summary of the content of the document. There are many English speaking persons who have studied Latin and none questioned the content of my summary on the basis of the actual content of the primary source. After three months (end of May-September, 4th, 2007) somebody simply replaced it with the index extracted from the secondary source. I think this was unfair because it was not based on questioning the actual content of my summary, but simply on the basis that the person was unable to check and was too lazy to ask the independent opinion of anybody able to read Latin. I read somewhere on the WEB somebody stating that he was no further contributing to Wikipedia as any valuable text is later degraded to a level of common ignorance. I think this was another example and I reacted the same way for one year because I am not involved in the controversies and I don't care about polemics not based on facts.

I understand the situation is a bit peculiar from the viewpoint of wikipolicy but I have noticed that IT-WIKI handled it in a way similar to the way now followed in the English article, namely by publishing side by side some excerpts of the Latin text and its translation prepared with the contribution of several wikipedians. I don't see any other serious way of managing the issue. When I noticed that the article was again based on facts (namely the Latin text) and not only on drafts, polemics and gossips, I decided to contribute by providing a word by word translation, so that anybody can easily point out where he feels I have made any mistake, if any.

In conclusion I recommend:

a) to split the article in two different articles or at least clearly separated sections dealing, as said above, with the document and with the controversy.

b) to increase the number of quotations of the Latin text, providing side by side a translation (I volunteer to contribute; I would prefer somebody else to do the first draft so that from the very beginning the translation is the product of at least two, and possibly more, independent Latin reading Wikipedians).

c) to move the Canon law quotations to the notes, as a confirmation of the content of a quote from Crimen Sollicitationis (for instance to show which was the general policy of the Catholic Church), not as a replacement to reading and quoting the original document.

If anybody agrees and does a), I will contribute to b) and c).

Pinea (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite willing to help. It seems that it was I who, as was requested, rewrote the article in early September, drawing inspiration from the Italian Wikipedia article, which presents the contents of the document in a way that Pinea seems to approve. This comparison shows that the article has remained substantially unchanged since my revision of 4 September, by which I ensured that "the article was again based on facts (namely the Latin text) and not only on drafts, polemics and gossips". Would Pinea agree that, if an expansion of the account of the contents is thought necessary, we should do it one section at a time, whatever section of the document is felt to most need fuller presentation? For my part, I don't think we should expand it very much, if at all: else we'll end up with a Wikipedia translation of the whole document, minus perhaps the formulas that take up much more than half of the document and which in any case were not obligatory ("pro opportunitate adhibendae"). What does GuyIncognito say? I hope he too agrees that the article should be "based on facts (namely the Latin text) and not only on drafts, polemics and gossips". Lima (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement that this document has been misrepresented by a lot of people. I just think that the article could do with some serious revision because a lot of the article doesn't include any sources. The problem with Wikipedians doing the translation is twofold. The first is that the Latin original has never been officially authenticated. Roman Catholic authorities have acknowledged the existence of Crimen sollicitationis but they haven't officially said "here is an accurate copy". We have to rely upon Thomas Doyle who released it, and although it's not likely that he altered it he is someone that has shown himself to be biased against the Roman Catholic hierarchy (he works with the lawyers suing the Church). We can't assume that any document calling itself Crimen sollicitationis is therefore the real one. So it still rests upon a person claiming that it's a true authentic copy to prove their claim. The second issue is, how do people know whether the English translation is accurate if it is done by Wikipedians? Do we have to just accept their say so or will they write their qualifications somewhere? This document is a legal one and I know from studying law that often words have unique meanings in a legal context and that's why I don't think it is a simple straight forward matter of translation.

The way it stands is that all experts in canon law are saying that it's just a procedural document that gives fairness to an accused cleric. I'll give you an example of a potential dispute:

Someone quotes a paragraph of Crimen and then translates it. Someone else comes along and says "how do we know that this is a part of the original document, maybe someone made it up or added it to the document?" How do we respond to them if we have to no website to refer them to to prove the claim? And what if another says "the translation is wrong". How do we prove it's correct? If we had some expert on a website translate it then it might be ok but at the moment no one is citing such an expert. So how do we prove the translation is accurate so that sceptical readers can know that is it? Then a third person might say that the passage means A or B whereas the entry in Wikipedia says it means C. If we don't have an expert on some website in or some book to refer to, how do we prove that the the Wikipedia entry is drawing the right inference? Canon law is complex so it might use words or expressions in unusual ways that can only be properly understood when read in accordance with the norms of Catholic canon law. It might seem obvious what a given paragraph means but it's still an interpretation.

Anyway, I don't want to go ahead and make any changes unless you guys agree. Also, it would take many hours of research to back up the claims in this article and I don't have that time at the moment. I will try and work with you both because you both sound knowledgeable on the topic.

GuyIncognito (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Let us not worry about merely potential disputes. Is anything actually disputed? Lima (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If any modification has to be done (nobody is really requiring), priority should be given to the Contents section. GuyIncognito is right in stating that references are missing and Lima is right in stating that the only meaningful reference is to the Latin text. Ideally we could add to each sentence (or period) a note, where Latin text and translation of crucial issues is given. In this way the main text will remain simple.

I do not share the concerns about "proving" that the translation is correct. The reliability of any information in WIKI is based on the fact that nobody has been able to motivate a modification. References are not a proof of truth, because the wikipedian author may have misused them. They are simply a hint on how to get deeper knowledge. Moreover, the reliability of websites is judgemental. For instance, after they have endorsed the Doyle translation of Crimen Sollicitationis I have no more trust on the BBC site, no matter how authoritative it might be considered by others. Pinea (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

edits by 12.5.207.254

"The document broadens the range and to before and after Confession on first page." As this stands, it is meaningless. Please be specific. Broadens the range of what? In what way? The edit seems to betray a confusion between the rules for trials, the only part of canon law that the document did alter (making the rules more specific, not broader), with a non-existent broadening of the delineation of the offence of solicitation ("to before and after Confession"), a matter that the document did not in fact touch.

"(Preliminaries: 11) of the document ... restrains the injured party by perpetual silence under penalty of excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church as outlined in (Title 1:18.)" This is simply false. Article 18 restated the already existing penalty of excommunication for the injured party if she/he did not denounce solicitation within one month of the occurrence! And article 11 said nothing about the injured party: it imposed silence only on the members of the tribunal. Who would approve a member of the tribunal telling it abroad that such-and-such a person (whether ugly or handsome) claims that she/he was the object of desire of some priest?!

The crime in question is solicitation during or immediately before or after Confession. 12.5.207.254 removed the important word "immediately", making it appear that the term covered any solicitation even twenty or more years before or after the Confession. Lima (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A 39 page Directive on how to keep sexual abuse in house? "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Read it. Lima (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminaries – 13 (accuser must be silenced) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Article 13 did not say that the accuser must be silent about the accusation: like article 12, it only spoke about the trial itself, and explicitly said that ordinarily no penalty whatever was imposed on an accuser who chose not to be silent even about that. And don't forget that article 18 imposed an obligation not to be silent about the offence, but to denounce it within at most one month, and inflicted a heavy penalty on anyone who did not denounce but chose instead to be silent! It was on the accused, not the accuser, that article 13 imposed a serious obligation of silence, backed up by the penalty of suspension from his priestly functions. Lima (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminaries 13:

"The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers of those denouncing {the Priest} and the witnesses."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk • contribs)

Yes. What secret? Lima (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All matters pertaining to the case. “is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all maters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication”

The victim would be clearly excommunicated if he/she went outside the Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes: all matters pertaining to the ecclesiastical court case. (The Latin for court case is "causa".) It is ridiculous to suggest that article 13 imposed on the accuser silence "with all persons" about the accusation. Unless the accusation were revealed to at least one person, there would have been no case. On the contrary, keeping the matter secret for over a month was punished by excommunication.

The document made it obligatory to denounce the priest to the bishop or the Holy See, and indicated what steps should follow. The document nowhere forbade making the accusation to the civil authorities. In that case it would be dealt with by a civil tribunal, not an ecclesiastical one; the penalty, if the accusation was upheld, would be a material one, not a spiritual one such as excommunication or suspension; and it would not be a matter for a Church document.

By the way, article 13, and the document as a whole, did not speak of excommunication or any penalty whatever for a failure by the accuser to observe silence about the case. Lima (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, it is would be more ridiculous to suggest that the meticulous language "in all maters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication" is abstract, allegorical, figurative, metaphorical or symbolic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk • contribs)

Nobody says that the words "in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication", which, as already stated, were about the the tribunal officials, not the accuser, are abstract, allegorical, figurative, metaphorical or symbolic. Lima (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Directive clearly states: “each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way”, the accuser is part of the tribunal. In “any way” covers any form of association to the process.

The Process – Chapter 3 – 52 "In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth." But notice that in Preliminaries – 13 it’s mandatory to bind the victim. “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing {the priest} and the witnesses”.

The Directive victimizes the victims while protecting the molesters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded arbitrary affirmations again. The accuser was obviously not one of the functionaries of the judging tribunal, who were to take the Formula A oath and who would be excommunicated if they broke it (article 11). Neither was the accused. Nor were the witnesses. Accuser, witnesses and accused were dealt with separately in a different article, with no threat of excommunication (13). Read it. Lima (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your other statements were so ridiculous that I missed what you said about article 52, which you misunderstood. Canon 1744, quoted in that article, said: "In criminal cases the judge cannot oblige the accused to take an oath to tell the truth ..." In, I suppose, nearly all forms of civil law the same rule holds: someone accused of a criminal offence is not obliged to take the witness stand. Lima (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My statements aren't what's rediculous, its the quotes from the Directive: “each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way”, the accuser is part of the tribunal. In “any way” covers any form of association to the process.

When omeone accused of a criminal offence takes the stand, he/she takes the oath to tell the truth like anyone else. The Process – Chapter 3 – 52 "In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth." But notice that in Preliminaries – 13 it’s mandatory to bind the victim. “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing {the priest} and the witnesses”.

"Read it" is good advice, to recognize and see through the clever damage control, endeavoring to minimize the Directive’s role and significance, devised with the cunning ability of Michael Jackson’s defense team attorneys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.207.254 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I regret having to say this, but it is ridiculous to confuse an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which the accused person was not obliged to take (as was and still is the regular practice also in civil courts - they are not obliged to take the stand), with an oath of confidentiality, which both the accused and the accuser were asked to take (with a penalty, in case of violation, for the accused but not for the accuser). Lima (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Interaction with secular law?

Is there any merit in including a section on how the provisions of canon law interfaced with civil law? I believe that in Ireland at least the confidentiality of these proceedings were respected by the secular courts (under the influence of Mr Justice Gavan Duffy). -- Shoneen (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing PDF

Under section: Purpose of the secrecy, the PDF study seems to be missing. It links to:

http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/Commentary_on_Crimen_Sollicitationis_11-1-06.pdf

Perhaps it is my internet provide. Please check it out.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I independently already repaired this link, thanks Hansmuller (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong date of De delictis gravioribus

In the last paragraph of the general part of the main article, we read:

The 24 January 2001 document De delictis gravioribus updated Crimen sollicitationis in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which had replaced the 1917 Code that was in force in 1962.

But, in the main article, De delictis gravioribus, as well as in the original (Latin text) of De delictis gravioribus (@ vatican.va) the date is 18 May 2001.

All this being premised, before I correct the date in this article, I would like to know if the date that appears at present, 24 January 2001, has any relevance at all. For instance, is it perhaps the date of a preliminary draft?
Miguel de Servet (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Well noticed. The given date is clearly mistaken. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong date of document

I have corrected the glaring error that the document was issued in 1962. it in fact dates from 1922, and was only re-issued to bishops in 1962, as referenced from the Murphy Report. Xandar 22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The document normally meant when Crimen sollicitationis is spoken of is the 1962 document approved by John XXIII and signed by Ottaviani, not the almost identical 1922 document approved by Pius XI and signed by Merry del Val. The Doyle study, which mentions both, begins: "The document known as Crimen sollicitationis was issued by the Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962". The document De delictis gravioribus specifies the 1962 document as what was in force until 2001. Esoglou (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Post 2001

Here is some content which ended up in the wrong place. There could be a section or link describing the situation after 2001 though?

"These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, revised June 2005, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."

Richiez (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to see the relevance to Crimen sollicitationis of information about the canonical situation after 2001, when Crimen sollicitationis was no longer in force. And the post-2001 situation is perhaps too vast for an appendix. Certainly the post-2001 rules that are in force only in a single country are not suitable for insertion here. Esoglou (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crimen sollicitationis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/624dQBKwd?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fresources%2Fresources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813085221/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020110_sacramentorum-sanctitatis-tutela_lt.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020110_sacramentorum-sanctitatis-tutela_lt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crimen sollicitationis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010195518/http://www.sarabite.info/crimen.pdf to http://www.sarabite.info/crimen.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)