Philipp Spörry, former Chancellor of the canton of Valais in Switzerland, published an article on Kath.ch, the official website of the Swiss Catholic Bishops’ Conference, in which he critically analyzes the issue of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and the role and influence of the media in it, presenting it as a challenge for the Church.
The article begins by referring to a study carried out by the University of Zurich, commissioned by the Swiss Catholic Bishops’ Conference. It is a study on sexual abuses committed in the Roman Catholic Church in Switzerland since 1950. The study reports 510 accused individuals and 921 victims.
The publication of the investigation, says Spörry, brought about a radical change: “From a period of cover-up and concealment, we moved into a phase of suspicion towards the clergy. Allegations of abuse became more frequent and the ecclesiastical institutions reacted by removing the accused from their ecclesiastical functions,” he says.
Although the Bishops’ Conference decided to be transparent and to take charge of the abuse cases and to compensate the victims, this attitude did not fully restore the confidence of the media and social networks in the Bishops’ Conference.
Pressure from the media and social networks
In the face of a widespread suspicion of clerical guilt, there are people who emerge to exploit this fact with an agenda of their own. Spörry states that “clerics can be disqualified as perpetrators of abuse on the basis of mere accusations. The cleric becomes the target of a storm of discrediting, i.e. in a very short time numerous negative comments spread through social networks that have far-reaching existential consequences for the religious in question.” And he adds that “the resulting permanent stress poses a considerable risk to the cleric’s reputation. Due to the omnipresence and intensity that characterize a whirlwind of drama, the cleric in question is unable to defend himself against such agitation and the accused is publicly branded as an aggressor and considered guilty, without further investigation or evidence.”
He continues, “With the help of social networks, an accusation becomes a proven fact for the public opinion and the outrage against this cleric spreads like an avalanche. Meanwhile, we can see that it is enough to unleash a whirlwind of drama against a person and their career in the institution comes to an abrupt end.”
The author asks “in a situation like this, where is the question of truth and justice? Who will guarantee that the accused can exercise their rights? The media and social networks are undoubtedly opinion-forming tools, but they are not accountable for their reports and their claims are not subject to the presentation of evidence.” With this, the right of presumption of innocence is not considered at all.
The legal framework
Spörry then refers to the constitutional framework, which must be taken into account in cases of suspicion, expressing that “what is decisive in a state under the rule of law is not the conviction of a person by social networks, but the judgment of a legitimate criminal court, which is based on evidence and grants the accused the right to defense,” and continues, stating that “the presumption of innocence guaranteed by fundamental and human rights establishes that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a final judgment. This is intended to ensure that the accused is protected from any prejudice.”
A rapid response for victims
“In order to bring justice to all these victims who often denounced the sexual crimes they had suffered several decades later,” explains the author, ‘the Swiss Bishops’ Conference was of the opinion that these people should at least be compensated through a simple procedure. However, the laudable fundamental need of the Catholic Church to do justice to victims and compensate them for their suffering is currently creating a possible consequence that false victims could also come forward for financial or other interests to claim monetary compensation for themselves.” He adds that “on June 30, 2016, the three national church institutions in Switzerland adopted a directive on the payment of reparations to time-barred victims of sexual assault in the ecclesiastical sphere. The Bishops’ Conference set up the Compensation Commission.”
But there remains an issue that is difficult to resolve. It is the challenge of differentiating in these proceedings between genuine and false victims in the absence of evidence.
Incorrect accusations
Spörry mentions the case of the former vicar of the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, Nicolas Betticher, who, in the context of investigations he conducted into abuse in the diocese, accused six bishops and heads of monasteries of actively covering up cases of abuse, requesting in a letter to the nuncio the immediate application of canon law against these persons.
Following a preliminary canonical investigation to clarify the accusations made, Bishop Joseph Maria Bonnemain, commissioned by the Vatican for this task, led the investigation together with the cantonal judge of Neuchâtel, Pierre Cornu, and Zurich criminal law professor Brigitte Tag. Their report together with the Vatican’s assessment stated that “only errors, omissions and negligence were found within the scope of canonical procedural norms and that there was no fault requiring the opening of internal criminal proceedings in the Church, which would have been necessary in the case of an active cover-up of the abuse cases,” the author says.
The case of Fr. Kentenich
In order to make the point, Spörry also resorts to the case of Fr. Joseph Kentenich, who was never formally accused of any crime and about whom no accusation was ever made against his moral integrity. In the face of his insistent request to the Holy Office to be informed of any accusation and his request to be submitted to an ecclesiastical trial that would allow him to exercise his defense and present in depth the contribution he wished to offer to the Church, he never received an answer. After 14 years of exile, he regained his freedom at the end of the Second Vatican Council, under the pontificate of Pope Paul VI.
About this case, the author analyzes “another example of a campaign directed against a clergyman,” referring to the book “Vater darf das!” (Father can do it!), by the researcher Alexandra von Teuffenbach, and explains that “it was published in Germany to impede the process of beatification of Father Joseph Kentenich (1885-1968),” and that “after the publication of the book,” (two years later), “the bishop of Trier, Stephan Ackermann, suspended the beatification process and would have received the approval of the Vatican,” indicating that “the researcher went so far as to vehemently demand the definitive annulment of the process.”
It should be noted that it is not a question of closing the canonization process, but of a preventive suspension.
Spörry is critical of “the prompt suspension of the beatification process without a more detailed technical and objective investigation,” believing that “it seems to be a self-protective reaction of the bishop of Trier in order not to appear to the public as an inactive head of the Church.” The author believes that “an ongoing process has been suspended without further scrutiny in order to avoid being at the mercy of further media criticism and prejudiced journalistic attacks.”
The author believes that “before suspending the proceedings, the bishop should have carried out a summary examination of the veracity of the statements contained in the aforementioned book.” He believes that “otherwise, any public affirmation without legally confirmed evidentiary value could directly influence the ecclesiastical proceedings in force.” And he closes: “A summary examination would have shown whether the allegations in the historian’s book are legally admissible and therefore relevant for the beatification process.”
It should be noted that Spörry is not a member of any of the Schoenstatt communities. His opinion is external to the Movement.
Four conditions to support a declaration of criminal activity
Spörry states that four conditions must be cumulatively met for a declaration of criminal activity to be admissible, and he exemplifies this assertion based on the Kentenich case.
First, he states that a sufficient minimum of objective evidence is required.
The author explains about this particular case, that “from among thousands of letters of the Sisters of Mary found in various archives, the historian chooses” (from the archives of the Holy Office – today the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) “a single letter dated September 20, 1948 from a sister, Georgia Wagner. It seems clear to the author that, according to the sister’s text, something morally reprehensible must have happened here, and finally, in the author’s personal interpretation, it becomes sexual abuse. However, in this letter there is not a single description on which the accusation of physical-sexual abuse by Fr. Kentenich can be based. Since the wording of the letter does not permit such a conclusion, such an interpretation would have required an intensive investigation of Georgia Wagner as a person and of the circumstances.
He continues: “Important events such as the replacement of this Sister of Mary as superior of the foundation in Chile and her request to return to Germany, her deteriorating health as a result of Graves Basedow’s disease and its effects on her behavior are completely ignored. The whole relational environment within the community of the Sisters of Mary and her close relationship with a Pallottine, Father Ferdinand Schmidt (her confessor; a known opponent of Father Kentenich) is also ignored. All these and other contextual references were completely ignored.”
Secondly, he points out that an incident of gravity is required to grant the alleged accusation a public information interest.
Applied to the Kentenich case, it states that “since no illicit behavior on the part of Father Kentenich is proven, there is also no incident of serious importance that could justify a legitimate interest in denouncing him.”
Thirdly, he warns about the importance that there should not be a unilateral presentation and that it should not be contaminated by prejudice.
Regarding a possible one-sidedness in von Teuffenbach’s research, Spörry exposes that “the historian searched almost exclusively in the archives of the Pallottine Fathers of Limburg for some letters of Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary who complained about the founder of this movement. At that time – about 70 years ago – there were around 1,500 Sisters of Mary in the Schoenstatt Movement. Of these, she found ten sisters who were dissatisfied with Fr. Kentenich’s leadership of the Movement or with the community. These letters, which also lack contextual references and analysis, form the basis of her book. The author attempts to relate the contents of these letters in such a way that a systematic abuse on the part of the founder against the Sisters of Mary in general and against the dissatisfied Sisters of Mary in particular can be deduced.” And he concludes, “Father Kentenich’s point of view is presented in an extremely rudimentary and pejorative manner. Arguments and information that could speak in favor of Father Kentenich’s innocence are not presented at all.” The same also abound in the archives of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
It should be pointed out that the ten dissatisfied sisters to whom the author refers and who write these letters critical of Father Kentenich, do so 15 years – and more – after Sister Georgia’s letter. They write at the request of Father Köster, a Pallottine priest, who was opposed to Fr. Kentenich and who collects these letters in the Pallottine archive in Limburg. These sisters had already withdrawn from the community when they wrote. Another Pallottine priest guides von Teuffenbach in that archive, as the author herself points out in her book. These letters were already in the archive of the cause of beatification of Fr. Kentenich in the diocese of Trier. Fr. Köster had sent them in 1990, precisely to try to stop the process, which at that time did not happen.
And fourthly, the person concerned must be heard and be given the opportunity to present his version of the facts.
In this regard, Spörry states that “from the publication in question and the reaction of the Secular Institute of the Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary, it can be deduced that the author did not consult the Sisters of Mary before publishing her book and thus did not give the persons who can exercise the post mortem rights of Father Kentenich any opportunity to give their opinion.”
Suggested solution for Switzerland
The article in question returns to the local issue of Switzerland, where it is proposed that “the Swiss Bishops’ Conference should set up the Criminal and Disciplinary Tribunal at the national level to achieve a coordinated national assessment of victims and offenders.” It closes by stating that “it would be desirable for the Swiss Criminal and Disciplinary Tribunal to grant all affected parties (victims and defendants) full party rights in the proceedings, which are comparable to ordinary criminal procedure codes, and thus also create transparency and justice for all. The Swiss Bishops’ Conference has set the goals, but as the saying goes: ‘The devil is in the details’.”
——————————————
Original Philipp Spörry’s article in German: https://www.kath.ch/medienspiegel/der-umgang-mit-der-problematik-des-sexuellen-missbrauchs-als-herausforderung-fuer-die-katholische-kirche/
Philipp Spörry’s article in Spanish: https://www.vivitmedia.org/2024/12/18/afrontar-abusos-sexuales-un-reto/
