・「教会法による守秘義務」が教皇の”サミット”で敗北したのは、明白(Crux解説)

 ローマ発-教皇フランシスコの品質保証付きの特質は、晴れの舞台でご自分の親友と盟友にスポットライトを浴びさせることがお好きだ、ということだ。今週行われた聖職者の性的虐待への対応をテーマとする、リスクの高い”サミット”にも、それは当てはまるー基調報告者として選ばれた数少ない高位聖職者たちは、フランシスコの最も強力な支持者たちにリストに入っている人たちだったようだ。

 結果として、こうした高位聖職者たちが何を言うかは、注意を払う価値があった。彼らの発言が、教皇の個人的な考えを直接反映しないまでも、少なくとも彼が重大と考えていると感じることができるからだ。そうした観点から、今回の会議で、司教たちが明確持ち帰る価値のあるものがあるーそれは「 pontifical secrecy(教会法による守秘義務)は、もはや延命しない、昔はそうだったが、今はそうではない」という理解だ。

 この3日の間、2人の卓越した話し手が教皇の秘密に強烈なパンチをくらわせた-その2人とは、教皇にとっての重要人物である、ドイツの司教協議会長で枢機卿顧問会議のメンバーであるラインハルト・マルクス枢機卿と米国で教皇の頼りになる人物であるシカゴのブレーズ・クピック枢機卿である。

 会議二日目の22日に演壇に立ったクピック枢機卿が最初の1人。彼の話は簡潔だったが、「被害の報告は、”国家機密”や極秘のルールで妨げられるべきではない」という、問題の核心を突くものだった。「報告」とは、教会の関係者を児童虐待で警察と検察当局に通報することを意味した。何年もの間、教会の高官たちは再三、報告をしない理由として「教会法の下で課せられた秘密保持の義務」を強調してきた。それを枢機卿は「くだらない言い訳」と一蹴したのだ。

 次はマルクス枢機卿だった。彼は、端的に言えば、教会法による守秘義務の翼は切り取る必要がある、との主張を展開したのだ。それは、守秘義務を一律適用する従来のやり方から、21世紀型の「データ保護」のルール-知る法的権利を持つ個人や機関に情報が渡るのを抑えるのではなく、悪意のあるハッカーから個人的な詳細情報を防護することを狙いとするーに改めること、を意味した。

(以下翻訳中)

“We need to consider the definition and limits of pontifical secrecy,” Marx said. “In light of changing communications patterns in the age of social media, when each and every one of us can establish instant communication, we need to redefine confidentiality and secrecy and distinguish them from data protection.”

If the Church doesn’t do so, Marx warned, “we’ll either squander the chance to maintain some level of self-determination or expose ourselves to the suspicion of covering up.”

 

At a news conference Saturday, the same point was made by Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta, formerly the Vatican’s top prosecutor for sex abuse crimes and a leading reformer.

“There’s a need for transparency, and a definitive movement toward the culture of disclosure,” said Scicluna.

Scicluna said the problems regarding transparency in the Church are “not only ad extra,” meaning with society and institutions, but also within the Church itself, from one diocese to another.

 

Even outside the Vatican’s synod hall where the summit is taking place, secrecy took a beating.

The Archbishop of Armagh and the Primate of All Ireland, Eamon Martin, told Crux Saturday that he supported calls for greater transparency.

“Secrecy must go out the window” when it comes to the abuse of children, he said. “Secrecy has been one of the root causes of the problem we are in today.”

Speaking of his own experience in Ireland, one of the countries hardest hit by the clergy abuse crisis, Martin said “my files have to be open.”

 

At this point, a bit of background on the pontifical secret may be in order.

While virtually everything that happens in the Vatican is considered confidential in some form, covered by what’s known as the “secret of the office,” more serious matters traditionally have been subject to a “pontifical secret,” violation of which can trigger severe penalties up to excommunication.

(Of course, very few things covered by the “pontifical secret” actually remain hidden. As the old Roman joke goes, what a “pontifical secret” really means is that the pontiff is the last guy to hear about it.)

The issue of pontifical secrecy exploded in 2003, when CBS broadcast an exposé pivoting on a 1962 Vatican document called Crimen Sollicitationis, which dealt with the canonical crime of “solicitation,” meaning a priest abusing the confessional to proposition someone sexually. Among other things, it imposed secrecy on canonical investigations of these cases and other sexual misconduct by a priest.

Many commentators touted Crimen as a “smoking gun” proving that the cover-up of clerical abuse was an explicit Vatican policy, although that was an overreach. First of all, the vast majority of bishops in the world had never heard of the document before 2003. Even if they had read it, they would have discovered that it applied only to the content of the Church’s legal procedures, not to whether they should also report the crime to the police.

Granted, such fine points have sometimes been lost on mid-level managers, who simply see the word “secret” and assume the safest course is to keep their mouths shut unless specifically directed to do otherwise.

On the other hand, canon lawyers and other experts say there are often perfectly legitimate reasons in abuse cases for some degree of secrecy (a better word for which is probably “confidentiality”). It allows witnesses to speak freely, permits accused priests to protect their good name until guilt is established, and encourages victims to come forward who don’t want publicity. Moreover, such secrecy is also not unique to sex abuse – it applies, for example, to the appointment of bishops and to the Vatican’s diplomatic communications.

If the problem in the past was that too many bishops erred on the side of caution in keeping things secret, skeptics may wonder about a risk in the wake of this summit of an equal-and-opposite mistake of disclosing virtually everything without considering the consequences.

That, at least, is something that figures such as Cupich, Marx and Martin may have to ponder as a brave new world in Catholicism of “traceability and transparency,” as Marx called it Saturday, begins to take shape.

このエントリーをはてなブックマークに追加
2019年2月25日