(Latin for "the crime of solicitation"; English title: On the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of ) is the title of a 1962 document ("instruction") of the Holy Office codifying procedures to be followed in cases of priests or bishops of the Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents.De delictis gravioribus, footnote 3 It repeated, with additions, the contents of an identically named instruction issued in 1922 by the same office.Murphy Report , Irish Government, 2009. Para 4.18-19
The 1962 document, approved by Pope John XXIII and signed by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Holy Office, was addressed to "all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite". It was an internal document for use by the Curia,Ottaviani, A. "On the Manor of Proceeding in Causes of Solicitation", CDF, 16 March 1962 describing how the rules in the Code of Canon LawCodex Iuris Canonici (1917), "Liber quartus: De processibus" on dealing with such cases were to be implemented, and directed that the same procedures be used when dealing with denunciations of homosexual, paedophile or zoophile behaviour by clerics. Dioceses were to use the instruction for their own guidance and keep it in their archives for confidential documents;The rules concerning the secret archives, distinct from the general archives and the historical archives, are explained in John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, A New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 642–644. they were not to publish the instruction nor produce commentaries on it. (heading of the Instruction).
remained in effect until 18 May 2001, when it was replaced by new norms promulgated by the papal motu proprio of 30 April of the same year.Thomas Doyle. The 1922 Instruction and the 1962 Instruction Crimen sollicitationis. . Section 2.English translations: "Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela", Bishop-Accountability.org. "Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations". Holy See. Normally it would have ceased to have effect with the entry into force of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which replaced the 1917 Code on which the 1962 document was based, but it continued in use, with some necessary adaptations, while a review of it was carried out.De delictis gravioribus, second paragraphDoyle, sections 4–6
Applicability and scope In line with the opening words of the document, 70 of the 74 paragraphs of which it was composed dealt with cases concerning sexual advances during the sacrament of Penance, repeatedly referring to the complainant or injured party as "the penitent" (the person confessing sins); the final four paragraphs laid down that its contents applied also to (the foulest crime), namely a homosexual act, with which were equated, for penal effects, any perpetrated or attempted externally obscene act with pre-adolescent children or brute animals. Charges concerning these crimes also were to be handled according to the norms of the document, even if committed without any connection with Penance.Thomas Doyle, The 1922 instruction and the 1962 instruction "Crimen sollicitationis" promulgated by the Vaticanunofficial translation of the document from Vatican https://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html
Media accounts sometimes presented the instruction as not concerned principally with sexual solicitation in Confession, but with denunciations of paedophilia. While it is true that such acts were covered by , canon lawyers have argued that the secrecy provisions of the document "would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police".
Canon law on cases of solicitation in confession
The Code of Canon Law in force when was issuedThe law in force under the 1983 Code of Canon Law is as follows: obliged anyone whom a priest solicited in confession to denounce him within one month and ordered that any such priest be subjected to a serious ecclesiastical punishment:
indicated the procedure to be followed between a denunciation and the possible infliction of a penalty.
Outline of the letter
Preliminaries (sections 1–14) Title One: First intimation of the crime (15-28) Title Two: The trial (29–60) Chapter I: Investigation (29–41) Chapter II: Canonical regulations and cautioning of the accused (42–46) Chapter III: Summoning the accused (47–54) Chapter IV: Conduct of the trial, verdict and appeal (55–60) Title Three: Penalties (61–65) Title Four: Official communication (66–70) Title Five: The most evil crime (71–74) Approval by Pope John XXIII on 16 March 1962 Appendices: Formula A: oath of office Formula B: abjuration of errors Formula C: absolution from excommunication Formula D: delegating a person to receive a denunciation Formula E: receiving a denunciation Formula F: delegating a person to examine witnesses Formula G: full examination of a witness (about the priest and the accuser) Formula H: partial examination of a witness (about the accuser only) Formula I: general examination of the accuser Formula L: conclusions and proposal of the Promoter of Justice Formula M: decision of the Local Ordinary Formula N: admonition of the accused Formula O: decree of arraignment Formula P: examination of the accused Formula Q: conclusions and proposal of the Promoter of Justice Formula R: sentencing a convicted accused person who denies guilt Formula S: sentencing a convicted accused person who admits guilt Formula T: communication of the sentence to the accused
Contents The document's title, "" (Instruction on procedure in solicitation cases), indicates that it was composed to indicate how to carry out a canonical investigation into accusations of solicitation. It described the procedures to be followed in each phase: reception of a denunciation; the course of the investigation, summoning the accused, sentencing, and the possibility of appeal.
The result of the investigation could vary: if the accusation appeared to be unfounded, this was stated in the record and the documents containing the accusation were destroyed; if only vague evidence emerged, the case was filed away for use if fresh evidence appeared; if the evidence was strong but insufficient for arraigning the accused, he was given an admonition and the records were preserved with a view to any further developments; if the evidence was strong enough, the accused person was summoned and a canonical trial took place.
Quoting canon 2368 §1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, then in force, , 61 indicated the penalties that could be imposed after conviction. These penalties, such as suspension a divinis, deprivation of an office or rank, and reduction to the lay state, were of public character, even if the trial itself had been conducted with all due secrecy. The same part of the document laid down that, in addition to those penalties, penances should be imposed on guilty priests, and those in danger of repeating their crime should be subjected to particular vigilance (64).
Except in connection with the sacrament of Penance, canon law imposed no legal obligation – though a moral one might exist – to denounce clerics guilty of engaging in or attempting a homosexual act; but the procedure described in was to be followed also in dealing with such accusations (71–72). And any gravely sinful external obscene act with prepubescent children of either sex or with animals engaged in or attempted by a cleric was to be treated, for its penal effects, as equivalent to an actual or attempted homosexual act (73).
Unless solicitation in connection with Confession was involved, not only the local bishop but also superiors of religious orders exempt from the jurisdiction of the local bishop could proceed, either by formal trial or non-judicially ("modo administrativo"), against members of those orders who had committed such crimes; superiors of non-exempt religious orders could also do so, but only non-judicially (74).
Trial confidentiality Since was primarily concerned with offenses committed in the confessional, this "presented particular problems of investigation, because in most cases the priest could not be interrogated fully without putting the seal of confession in danger."Thavis, John (July 16, 2010). "Vatican fills in blanks on history of sex abuse procedures". Catholic News Service.
Section 11 of outlines the required confidentiality of the investigation into accusations of the crime of solicitation. The document imposed absolute confidentiality on the trial's proceedings (explicitly excepting "what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect", the term "published" meaning "publication of the evidence" in Canon Law, or the conclusion of the "discovery phase" in a civil trial, before the verdict is rendered), both during its conduct and after any concluding verdict had been put into effect:
An oath of secrecy was to be taken by all members of the tribunal; violation incurred a penalty of automatic excommunication. The ecclesiastical penalty for violation of secrecy by the accused priest was automatic suspension , although he was free to discuss with his defence counsel (Section 13).
Unless violation of secrecy occurred after an explicit procedural warning given in the course of their examination (Section 13; and cf. Section 23 concerning the person denouncing solicitation: "before the person is dismissed, there should be presented to the person, as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening the person, if there is a need, with an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary or to the Holy See"), no ecclesiastical penalties were to be imposed on the accusers and witnesses.
The oath of office to be taken by the members of the tribunal was given as Formula A:
Interviewed for a television programme in 2006, canon lawyer Thomas Doyle is quoted as saying that the tight secrecy demanded for the procedure as "an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy, to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by churchmen".Sex Crimes and the Vatican (an October 2006 BBC documentary However, regarding the programme transcript, the BBC "cannot vouch for its accuracy". Not long after the broadcast, Doyle said, "Although I was a consultant to the producers of the documentary I am afraid that some of the distinctions I have made about the 1962 document have been lost. I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy, in the conventional sense, engineered by top Vatican officials, to cover up cases of clergy sexual abuse."Allen, John L. Jr. (13 October 2006). "Fr. Tom Doyle on 'Crimen Sollicitationis. National Catholic Reporter.