WHAT ABOUT VICTIMS OF ABUSE?

The guideline was criticized from within and outside the Church, particularly on how it views victims of clerical sexual abuse. In a paper published in Asian Horizons, a theological journal based in India, Father Louie Cartagenas says the guideline suffers from certain limitations.

One is that the perspective of the victim or victims “seems missing if not unwelcome” in the guideline. Paragraph 38 of the guideline states that “care should be ensured to protect the confidentiality of the documentation” of the complaint. Yet, “in comparison, the documents of other local churches are categorical not to impose the obligation of silence among complainants. Besides, in cases where [a] complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, the other protocols obligate [the] concerned church authority to inform the victim about access to a review of process,” Cartagenas pointed out.¹⁴

Cartagenas, who was a member of the faculty of theology of the San Carlos Major Seminary in Cebu City, observed that the CBCP failed to mention a body that would oversee, monitor, and evaluate its strict implementation. “Such lack, in effect, gives every bishop latitude to implement it or not in his diocese. Anchoring the effectiveness of the protocol on the bishop’s goodwill, rather than on an overseeing body created and mandated by them, is too weak a mechanism to resist the dysfunctional propensities of the ‘clerical club.’ This becomes more problematic as regards the victims’ access to [a] complaints officer, because according to the protocol, when the offender is a bishop and not an ordinary priest, ‘the ecclesiastical superior will initiate the appropriate process.’”¹⁵

In such a case where the bishop is the offending party, a complainant will most likely face the Pope in Rome or his representative in the Curia. “The time lag for victims to be able to find the courage to come out is therefore compounded by the geographical and cultural distance imposed by ecclesiastical bureaucracy,” Cartagenas said.

The women’s group Linangan ng Kababaihan Inc. (Likhaan) and the Child Justice League Inc. (CJLI), in a report commissioned by Catholics for a Free Choice, said one of the more problematic provisions in the guideline was the CBCP’s contention that between the cleric and the bishop, “there exists a relationship of trust analogous to that between the father and son” and that “it does not belong to the pastoral office of the bishop to denounce a priest to civil authorities.”¹⁶

Likhaan and CJLI said that “given the inadequacy of Philippine child protection laws, this provision further aggravates the situation” for minors seeking justice. “Moreover, this provision begs several questions: what happens in cases where the priest-offender was caught by the bishop or religious superior in flagrante delicto? Or where multiple victims report only one offender? Or where one bishop transfers such an offender to another diocese? Is the receiving bishop assured of complete candor from the sending bishop regarding the cleric’s record, including reports of sexual misconduct?”¹⁷

Also of concern is the CBCP guideline’s double standard: ensuring confidentiality when a complaint has been lodged, yet demanding a public apology, with recourse to legal suit, when the allegation has been proven false. “While there is no compulsory reporting in the interest of the victims of child abuse, the CBCP is clear about defending itself when an accusation is proven false. Paragraph 39 mandates a very transparent and public action by the bishop or superior in cases where the accusation has been established as false. Evidently, the church finds use for the civil forum when it proves beneficial to the accused but not when it benefits the children-victims who are minors and are considered vulnerable by law.”¹⁸

Echoing Cruz’s position on priest-fathers, Likhaan and CJLI also pushed for child molesters to be permanently banned from the priesthood.¹⁹The CBCP guideline is careful on this one, stating that “if the sexual abuse is verified … the bishop or the superior will limit the ministry of the individual, or even prohibit, it if warranted. In the case of sexual abuse of a minor, no ministry with minors or unsupervised contact with them will be allowed. In verified cases of criminal behavior, the bishop or superior will recommend that the Promoter of Justice begin a canonical process for appropriate canonical sanctions.”²⁰

The guideline however draws the line when the cases involve priests who engage in homosexual relations or activity. If the child is less than 12 years old, the guideline mandates that automatic dismissal of the gay priest should be considered.

Bishop