ROME – On Tuesday the Vatican published a long-awaited revision of Book VI of the Code of

Canon Law, unveiling a brand-new penal system including a handful of new crimes and making
punishment for offenses an obligation, rather than a suggestion.

According to officials who worked on the project, the core idea is to overcome the idea that
punishment for crime is somehow unmerciful or unpastoral, transforming the administration of
justice into a routine feature of the life of the church.

One of the most highly anticipated changes to the code was its language and handling of the
crime of sexual abuse, which was previously included under the umbrella of sins committed
“against the sixth commandment.”

Under the new version of the code, which was promulgated Tuesday in an apostolic constitution
titled Pascite Gregem Dei, or “Tend the Flock,” there is now an entire chapter dedicated to the
issue under the title of, “Offenses Against Human Life, Dignity, and Liberty,” meaning that
conceptually in Church law, abuse is now considered a crime against human dignity, rather than
simply chastity.

The previous version of the code only mentioned the abuse of minors once in Canon 1395,
which foresaw punishment for “A cleric who in another way has committed an offense
against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or
threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years.”

In the new version, the reference to minors in Canon 1395 is taken out, and abuse is dealt with in
Canon 1398 of the new chapter, which states that a priest who abuses, commits indecent
exposure, or even grooms “is to be punished with deprivation of office and with other just
penalties, not excluding, where the case calls for it, dismissal from the clerical state.”

Provisions for those abused now include clerics, minors, and the intellectually disabled. The
term “vulnerable person,” which is used frequently in abuse prevention efforts, including by the
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors and Vulnerable Persons, does not appear.

Instead, the term used is those with “an imperfect use of reason.” One motive for this is likely
that a precise definition for “vulnerable” in this context has yet to be established and is still
disputed among experts.

According to Canon 1398, a priest will be punished if he “commits an offence against the sixth
commandment of the Decalogue with a minor or with a person who habitually has an imperfect
use of reason or with one to whom the law recognizes equal protection.”

A priest will also be punished if he “grooms or induces a minor or a person who habitually has
an imperfect use of reason or one to whom the law recognizes equal protection to expose himself
or herself pornographically or to take part in pornographic exhibitions, whether real or
simulated.”
The new canon also covers pornography, stating that a priest will be punished if he “immorally
acquires, retains, exhibits or distributes, in whatever manner and by whatever technology,
pornographic images of minors or of persons who habitually have an imperfect use of reason.”

Another novelty in the new chapter is the expansion of the category of abusers, which now
includes provisions for non-ordained religious and laypeople, such as a catechist or the head of a
lay movement, instead of just priests.

A 12-year project that began in 2009, the revision of Book Six of the Code of Canon Law deals
with “Penal Sanctions in the Church.”

This marks the most significant revision to Canon Law since the publication of the most recent
version of the Code in 1983, meaning nearly 40 years have elapsed in which three different
popes have issued new norms for crimes and punishments which until now had yet to be
compiled into a comprehensive text.

Prior to 1983, the most recent version of the Code was published in 1917.

The new version of Book Six contains 88 Cannons – 1311-1399 – most of which have been
modified in some way, even if it’s a difference of just one word.

In the new version, one of the smallest yet most significant modifications is a change in phrase
for bishops and superiors, telling them that they “must” punish, rather than “can” punish,
making the penal code less of a suggestion and more of an active tool at their disposal.

Both Archbishop Filippo Iannone, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and
Bishop Juan Arrieta, secretary of the same department, spoke at a June 1 press briefing
presenting the modified Chapter Six.

In remarks to journalists, Iannone insisted that “it is charity that requires, in fact, that pastors
have recourse to the penal system as often as necessary, bearing in mind the three purposes that
make it necessary, namely, the re-establishment of the requirements of justice, the amendment of
the offender and the reparation of scandals.”

“The presence inside communities of some irregular situations, but above all the recent scandals,
which emerged from the disconcerting and very serious episodes of pedophilia, have…matured
the need to reinvigorate canon criminal law,” he said.

According to Arrieta, the reason why a revision of the Vatican’s penal code was so necessary
was not just because of the abuse scandals and the need to update it with laws issued since the
previous version was released, but primarily because the 1983 version was underdeveloped
and left too much in the hands of the bishops, with no clear, universal norm to follow.

The 1983 text, he said, was often “indeterminate, precisely because it was believed that the
individual bishops and superiors, who are responsible for applying the penal discipline, would
have better established when and how to punish in the most adequate way.”
Many bishops, Arrieta said, had difficulty “in combining the demands of charity with those
required by justice. Furthermore, the discrepancy of reactions on the part of the authorities was
also a cause for bewilderment in the Christian community.”

At the time the 1983 edition was drafted, the Church’s penal law was considered an instrument
to be used only as a last resort, rather than a regular tool of governance to reprimand wrongdoing
and prevent more serious crimes from being committed.

In general, the perception over time has been that the previous Code left too much discretion to
the bishops, who were often inexperienced in matters of penal law and didn’t know what to do
when problems arose.

The fact that ecclesial punishment was generally understood to be a last resort also complicated
matters, opening the door for more serious crimes to be committed.

The new version of Book Six clarifies more carefully what the crimes are, what the parameters
are for bishops who have to determine and dole out punishments, and how to better protect the
Church as a community, meaning any public scandal associated with a crime will also play a
factor in what punishment a guilty party receives.

Although many of the changes reflect either small tweaks or the addition of laws that had already
been issued by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis that simply had not been added
yet, around 6-7 new crimes have been added.

For example, the Code now contains a provision for the crime of failing to report abuse
cases to the proper authorities in article six of Cannon 1371. Pope Francis issued legislation
requiring mandatory reporting for bishops in 2019, but now there is a law criminalizing
the failure to do so.

Other crimes such as ordaining women and recording the conversation during the sacrament of
confession, which were already criminalized by John Paul II but had yet to be added to the
formal text of the Code of Canon Law, are now included in Book Six.

Some crimes that were present in the 1917 version of the Code but were taken out in the 1983
edition have been added back in, such as sheltering a seminarian who is unable to be ordained
due to a mental or psychological disturbance and did not disclose the condition, or another
similar reason.

This specific situation is dealt with in article two of Cannon 1388, which states that “A person
who comes forward for sacred orders bound by some censure or irregularity which he voluntarily
conceals is ipso facto suspended from the order received.”

Pope Francis recently hinted at the problem of unstable men who make their way into seminaries
during a conversation with the Italian bishops, warning them about “rigid” seminarians who
seem fine but in fact have a slew of problems and, at times, a bad track record in other
seminaries.
Several of the changes also have to do with the lawful distribution of property, which is
significant given recent scandals involving property deals, such as the Vatican’s purchase of a
property in London’s Chelsea district which allegedly drew on Vatican charitable funds, and
which incurred major debts.

Follow Elise Ann Allen on Twitter: @eliseannallen

The exercise of the Church’s penal law is very often misunderstood as an application of
simple penalties, rather than the exercise of discipline for the good of souls. This ministry
of justice must always respect all involved parties, for canon law itself, almost by
definition, must secure justice for the individual, the Church itself, and especially for
those who have been the victims of abuse in any form.
After a nearly fourteen year long period of revision initiated by Pope Benedict XVI, Pope
Francis’ Apostolic Constitution Pascite Gregem Dei (“Shepherd the Flock of God”)
promulgating the revised Book VI of the Code of Canon Law is the fruit of these
important revisions of the Church’s penal norms, which are always intended to be at the
service of the care of souls. The new, revised norms of Book VI of the Code go into
effect when the vacatio legis expires on December 8, 2021.
During the 20th century, the Church’s major source of law, the Code of Canon Law,
underwent two major revisions; the first leading to the 1917 Code of Canon Law,
modeled upon the civil legal codes which came into effect during the previous century
and were generally based upon Roman law, and the second being the desire of both St.
John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council to revise the Church’s laws. The 1983 Code
of Canon Law, promulgated by St. John Paul II, was largely based upon the principles
enunciated by the Second Vatican Council. Since that time, many societal changes have
taken place which have necessitated the updating of the Church’s discipline regarding
offenses and penalties. In particular, in the latter decades of the 20th century, a false
conception of mercy and charity, which tended to avoid juridic processes due to
indeterminate penalties in the law itself, was often practiced by ecclesiastical authorities.
Classically, this element of legal justice serves to regulate and properly order the
relationship between the individual and the larger society. Such norms are, as the
Apostolic Constitution itself notes, necessary for the good government of the Church
because of a need to vindicate the order of justice, as well as serving as a medicinal
purpose for the perpetrator and to repair scandal within the society that is the Church.
The Apostolic Constitution notes several foundational principles guiding the revision of
Book VI:
• The presumption of innocence, taken almost for granted in most Western civil legal
systems and which has its roots in canon law (as scholars such as Kenneth Pennington
have ably demonstrated), is clearly brought into relief in the revision of Book VI of the
Code of Canon Law.
• The question of prescription, which establishes definite time-frames for the application
of penalties and the hearing of cases, in such a way that justice is administered in a timely
fashion which respects the exigencies of all involved parties. This, too, is in keeping with
the old legal maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied.” Such a principle is clearly
exhibited in the revised canon 1362, defining a three-year time limit for a formal process
to conclude.
• The right of defense, which likewise is fundamental in virtually all Western legal
systems, that the accused should be granted the right to a fair hearing with his or her
ability to participate in the proceedings.
• The principle of proportionality, whereby punishments can be more clearly applied to
different crimes such that they better fit the nature of the delict. A corollary to this
principle is the notion, seen in the new norms, that penalties are to be more clearly
determined by the law itself and less left to the will of the authority imposing the penalty.
• As Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru, secretary for the Pontifical
Council for Legislative Texts noted, a certain clarity of norms is a hallmark of the revised
Book VI, as well as protection of the community and provision for means to prevent
offenses and promote amendment on the part of the offender.
It should also be noted that such norms, in the Church’s juridical tradition, as unfavorable
or restrictive laws, should be read and applied in a very restrictive fashion, limited to the
strict definition of the words themselves of the canon. (Regula Iuris 15, in VI°)
Certain aspects of the revised Book VI will demand further clarification as time
progresses from canonists and from the Church’s own jurisprudence. Certain terms,
which in recent Church documents and legislation have somewhat varying definitions,
will undoubtedly be the subject of discussion amongst canonists as they seek to properly
interpret these new norms.
In summation, then, these revised norms should be a very clear means for the Church to
restore and respect the order of justice amongst all parties within ecclesiastical life.

Rev. Albert P. Marcello, III, J.C.D. (Cand.), is the Defender of the Bond for the
Providence Tribunal and is a doctoral candidate in canon law at the Catholic University
of Louvain (Belgium).
Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru is the Secretary of the Pontifical Council of
Legislative Texts. In an interview with Vatican Radio's Christopher Wells, he explains why
Book VI on Criminal Law has been revised and updated, and how it now provides Bishops with
adequate instruments to prevent and punish crimes perpetrated in the Church:
Shortly after the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law in 1983, the limits of Book VI on
Criminal Law became apparent. Following an idea of decentralization the drafting of Penal notes
has been largely indeterminate. It was thought at that time, that it was up to the bishops and
superiors to decide, according to the gravity of the circumstances, which offenses to punish and
how to punish them. This indeterminacy of the norms and the difficulties of many Ordinaries
found at that time in combining charity with punishment was because criminal law was hardly
applied.
Moreover, it was not understood that bishops reacted differently to similar situations.
This situation caused the Holy See to intervene assigning the most serious crimes exclusively to
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and granting the faculty to intervene to other
dicasteries of the Curia. Finally, Pope Benedict decided to review Book VI.
The use of penal discipline is part of the pastoral charity of those who must govern and protect
their own communities of the faith.
Q: What are the criteria for the renewal of Book VI?
The main criteria for the revision of the penal law can be summarized in three points. First, better
determination of the norms: setting out clearly the cases in which the penal system is to be
applied and how offences are to be punished. Benchmarks are now also set to guide the action of
the Ordinary while respecting the necessary margins for evaluating specific circumstances.
The second criteria have been the protection of the community: establishing when to prevent an
announced scandal and recompensate for the damage caused.
Finally, a third objective has been to provide the authority with adequate instruments to be able
to prevent offences, to promote amendments or to be able to prevent offenses before they can
become more and more serious.
Q: What is new?
In general, overall two thirds of the canons in Book VI have been amended along these lines.
New offences that have been defined by older laws over the years have been incorporated in the
Code. Offences which in 1983 were effectively simplified have been better differentiated now.
Some offences that were not included in 1983 have also been taken directly from the Code of
1970, for example in the area of poverty.
Finally, other offences have been incorporated ex novo or some have been extended. For
example, the offence of abuse of minors or violence is applied not only with regard to clerics but
also in relation to religious and lay people who carry out some kind of office or function in the
Church.
In summary, these would be the main new provisions of Book VI of the Code.

The revised text contains a number of important changes to the way in which

penalties are applied in the Church, and the crimes which must be punished. It
also includes the systematic incorporation of numerous laws promulgated in the
Church in recent years, but not directly added to the Code of Canon Law.

Canonists and academics will likely spend months poring over the new canons,
and unpacking the likely implications — both intended and unintended. 

But as they dive into the text, some changes will likely be regarded as laudable
legal reforms, while others will eventually face criticism. And some aspects of
the new law are already raising complex interpretative questions for canonists.

What will be praised? What will be lamented? What will probably lead to more
questions? 

To get you started, The Pillar brings you analysis to the new Book VI: The
good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good
Law is good
Perhaps the first thing that can be said about the new penal code for the Church
comes not from the text of the new laws, but from Pope Francis’ apostolic
constitution promulgating it:

“The observance of penal discipline is a duty for the entire People of God,”
the pope wrote. 

“In the past, the lack of perception of the intimate relationship existing in the
Church between the exercise of charity and the recourse - where
circumstances and justice so require - to sanctioning discipline has caused
 much damage. This way of thinking - experience teaches us - runs the risk of
leading to behaviors contrary to the discipline of morals, whose remedy only
exhortations or suggestions are not enough.”
The project to reform Book VI began, as Francis noted, under Benedict XVI in
2007, and was part of a long series of legal projects aimed at bringing the
Church’s penal code up to date after a series of scandals that included the
Spotlight scandals of the early 2000s.

Many canonists believe the sexual abuse scandals of recent decades to have
been exacerbated by a culture of antinomianism —  the notion, especially
present in some quarters of the Church after Vatican Council II, that the idea of
law in the Church, and the idea of the Church as a coherent society in need of
law, is antiquated, draconian, or at odds with Christian charity.

Cases of clerical sexual abuse in the United States dating back to the 1960s,
‘70s, and ‘80s were compounded by bishops and chanceries who treated
criminal sexual activity principally as a pastoral problem, which led in many
cases to the practice of moving abusive priests from parish to parish. And many
canonists argue that a general tendency to avoid legal proceedings in the Church
has led to a laxity in clerical discipline, which enables clerical abusers to act
with impunity. 

Canon 1311, which kicks off the Code’s section on penal law, emphasizes the
pope’s call for a change in mindset.

While the old norm said simply that the “The Church has the innate and proper
right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal
sanctions,” the new norm adds an important exhortatory paragraph.

“The one who is at the head of a Church must safeguard and promote the good
of the community itself and of each of Christ’s faithful, through pastoral charity,
example of life, advice and exhortation and, if necessary, also through the
imposition or declaration of penalties, in accordance with the provisions of the
law, which are always to be applied with canonical equity and having in mind
the restoration of justice, the reform of the offender, and the repair of scandal,”
the new canon 1311 § 2 explains. 

That paragraph outlines in a nutshell the purposes of penal law, and the way in
which it fits into the Church’s life. It seems clear that Pope Francis wants to
emphasize both, even with fervorino canons of exhortation.

The revised canon 1341 also makes a substantive change underscoring the
pope’s proposed shift in mentality. 

The previous wording of the canon said that a bishop was “to take care to
initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only
after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of
pastoral solicitude” would not suffice.

The new version instructs that the bishop “must start a judicial or an

administrative procedure” in such circumstances. [emphasis added]

In fact, in several places, the new text requires bishops and religious superiors to
initiate penal processes or impose punishments when canon law has been
violated, even for relatively minor offenses, while the old text in those places
encouraged them to, but left the matter to their judgment.

That shift emphasizes the new text’s general expectation that bishops and
superiors will incorporate penal law into their ordinary governance of the
Church’s life, as part of a general tightening of Church discipline.

The new text also makes it easier for bishops to actually apply canon law, by
providing lists of graduated and escalating penalties, including even monetary
penalties, and urging episcopal conferences to help adapt those penalties even
more to local situations. Those resources are designed to ensure that no diocesan
bishop feels out of his depth when faced with the prospect of punishing a
wayward cleric.
The pope’s re-emphasis of penal law as a duty and service to the people of God
will likely be taken by many canonists as grounds for a renewed adherence to
proper procedure, and a “by the book” approach to every case. 
Due Process
At the same time, many have noted that in the aftermath of scandals like those in the
United States, priests have fallen under intense scrutiny and, in many places, a policy of
“zero tolerance” has crowded out due process for many who have been accused. 

In many dioceses, the desire to be seen to act swiftly and without hesitation to remove
priests accused of serious misconduct has created a class of what many canonists refer to
as “unassignables” — priests whom bishops refuse to return to ministry even after a
canonical process has failed to sustain the allegations against them, because of the
possibility of public outcry. 

Among the changes likely to be praised by canonical advocates and those concerned with
the protection of  priests’ rights are two small but significant additions.

The first is in canon 1321, which in both the old and new texts clarifies that no one can be
punished with a sanction unless he is proven guilty and is imputable, which means that he
is psychologically and morally responsible for his actions. But the new text adds a
positive assertion of the presumption of innocence: “Any person is considered innocent
until the contrary is proved.”

That addition may seem like very little. But given that priests and their advocates in
recent decades have charged that the mere accusation of a canonical crime can be enough
to see them exiled from ministry, the affirmation that the Church maintains a presumption
of innocence is likely to seem like a validation of their human right to a fair hearing.  

The other change is likely to be taken as both a protection of due process rights for
accused clerics and a measure of accountability and justice for alleged victims of clerical
abuse or misconduct.

The change is a new time limit on canonical prosecutions. Current penal law maintains a
general statute of limitations of 20 years for serious crimes, which can be waived by the
Vatican when necessary.
But it sometimes happens that a cleric faces the beginning of a canonical process toward
the end of the statute of limitations, and then, once begun, the case remains in limbo for
years — leaving both the cleric and the alleged victim holding their breath, with no sign
of resolution in sight. 

The new text of canon 1362 is a shot clock.

The canon allows a window of only three years from the beginning of a formal canonical
process for the prosecution to conclude its case, before the clock on the statute of
limitations starts running again. 

Clerics in lingering canonical processes can now demand a resolution to their status, and
eventually make a legal claim that the case against them has expired. Alleged victims can
remind the Church’s canonical prosecutors, called “promoters of justice,” that the
opportunity for justice can be thwarted by a running game clock.

Money, money, money

While much of the attention to the new Book VI will focus on its application to sexual
abuse, other crimes in the Church have been amended and expanded, too.

A new and much-expanded section on financial crimes might be mostly overlooked at

first, but it could eventually prove significant.

The previous version of the law included a short canon which allowed for a person “who
alienates ecclesiastical goods without the prescribed permission” to be punished with the
nebulous term “a just penalty.”

In place of that norm, a new canon 1376 provides a list of delineated penalties, including
fines, deprivation of office, and prohibitions on ecclesiastical ministry for financial
misconduct or malfeasance.

The new canon 1376 also details a far broader set of financial crimes which can lead to
the imposition of these penalties, including theft of Church goods or money.

Perhaps most significantly, the new canon also criminalizes “a person who without the
prescribed consultation, consent, or permission, or without another requirement imposed
by law for validity or for lawfulness, alienates ecclesiastical goods or carries out an act of
administration over them.” 

It also provides for the same punishments for “a person who is found to have been
otherwise gravely negligent in administering ecclesiastical goods.”

Both these provisions would seem to be aimed fairly directly at those, like diocesan
bishops or parish pastors, who make major financial decisions without following the
necessary canonical process. This would apply to, for example, the closure and sale of
church buildings, or the decision by a diocese to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy without
the approval of Rome — something U.S. bishops have been warned about directly by the
Vatican in recent years.  

Ordination of women
Another little-noticed but important change is the revision of canon 1379. 

The previous version of the canon provided the penalty of excommunication for “a
person who simulates the administration of a sacrament.”

That category includes a priest or bishop who knowingly attempts to perform a sacrament
with invalid matter, which would include, for example, attempting to ordain a woman,
since the valid matter for sacramental ordination is a baptized man.

The new version of the canon includes a separate paragraph making explicit that “both a
person who attempts to confer a sacred order on a woman, and the woman who attempts
to receive the sacred order, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the
Apostolic See,” and that the one who attempts to ordain a woman “may be punished by
dismissal from the clerical state.”

Given recent debate about the possibility of ordaining women to the diaconate, and the
calls from some German bishops to move forward on the ordination of women — first to
the diaconate and later to the priesthood — the new text of the canon could be a signal
from Rome that any attempt to forge ahead with these plans will be treated as a breach of
ecclesial communion, and punished accordingly. 

Abortion (actually)
The Vatican’s English translation of the new norms deviates from the currently approved
English translation of the canon on abortions and excommunication. The translation
change is likely to be appreciated for emphasizing directly the person to whom a latae
sententiae excommunication for abortion actually applies. 

The old translation of canon 1398 said that “a person who procures a completed abortion”
incurs such a penalty.

While canonists have emphasized in recent years that “procurement” refers to a person
undergoing, funding directly, or performing an abortion, numerous popular commentators
have at times argued that canon 1398 could also apply to politicians supporting legal
protection or state funding for abortion, given that they might be considered to have
remote moral participation in particular abortions.

The new Vatican translation of the norm, which in the official Latin edition remains the
same, makes an effort to thwart that argument, and to state more clearly the intended
meaning of the canon: Renumbered as canon 1397 §2, the canon’s translation adds a
crucial word: “A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae
sententiae excommunication.” [emphasis added]

The canon also adds a new norm, which establishes that a cleric involved in the
procurement of an abortion could be dismissed from the clerical state. There have indeed
been cases when clerics — either out of a gravely disordered sense of compassion, or to
hide their own paternity of a newly conceived child —  have given women money in
order to procure abortions. The law now states directly that such a man is to be dismissed
permanently from ordained ministry.

The collar
It is common practice in many American dioceses that when a bishop begins to
investigate an allegation of some delict against a priest or deacon, the cleric is
temporarily removed from ministry and prohibited from wearing clerical dress. While the
USCCB’s “Essential Norms” note situations when a bishop might “urge” a cleric to
refrain from wearing a collar, it is far more common to see a priest prohibited from doing
so, usually as soon as he faces an allegation of misconduct.
The new Book VI will likely put a stop to that.

The new norms of canon 1336 § 3 establish that a prohibition “against wearing
ecclesiastical or religious dress” is a penalty in the Church.

A penalty can’t be imposed without a penal process, or at least the violation of a penal
precept. That delineation should be expected to end the practice of prohibiting priests
under investigation from wearing clerical garb — a practice which priests who maintain
their innocence have long insisted is unjust, and gives the impression they are guilty long
before they’ve had their day in court.  

The laity 
A key thematic change to the revised Book VI is a much-amplified recognition of the
laity, and the role they play in the institutional life of the Church. 

In addition to the recently expanded role of catechists, which Pope Francis treated last
month, lay men and women have for decades played an increasingly important role in the
institutional Church, serving as diocesan chancellors, finance officers, judges in diocesan
tribunals, diocesan safeguarding officers, and so on. At the parish level, other positions
have also come into being since Vatican Council II, including the option for some lay
people to be given administrative charge of a parish in some circumstances (recognized
by the Code already in canon 517).

The revised penal law of the Church includes several new references to the laity, and to
men and women religious, including the norm that lay Catholics, including religious
sisters and brothers, are now explicitly to be punished under canon law for various
offenses related to sexual abuse. 

For most of the last two decades, ambiguity about that possibility has been raised as a
major gap, or lacuna, in the Church’s existing penal law.

For example, canon 1333 previously stipulated that the punishment of suspension from
office “can affect only clerics.” That provision is removed from the revised text, meaning
that those lay men and women who hold ecclesiastical offices can now be subjected to
the same penalties as clerics in relation to their offices, and, at least implicitly, expect the
same stability in office as a cleric accused but not yet found guilty of misconduct.
Conversely, the law previously defined as a crime the use of physical violence against the
pope, bishops, and clerics in hatred of the faith. 

But the revised canon 1370 is now broadened to include any member “of Christ’s faithful
out of contempt for the faith, or the Church, or ecclesiastical authority or the ministry.”
This would seem to cover assaults carried out against lay men and women in the course
of an ecclesial office or ministry — like the lay leader of a parish or a catechist, putting
them on the same footing as assaults against a priest or deacon under the previous version
of the canon.

The Bad
The still-ambiguous meaning of ‘vulnerable adults’
While there is no dispute that clerics who engage in spiritual manipulation, coercion, or
the abuse of power should be punished severely, and there are indeed several new canons
which emphasize this explicitly, there is an ongoing legal debate within the Vatican about
meaning of the term “vulnerable adult.” 

The newly promulgated Book VI, while it does not use the term directly, makes reference
to the concept without resolving the debate. That ambiguity is likely to be criticized both
by clerical defense advocates and victims’ advocates, as it might leave it more difficult
for either group to feel that justice is being served in canonical processes. 

Debate over how to legally define “vulnerable adults” when dealing with sexual abuse
cases has been particularly acute since the 2019 promulgation of Pope Francis’ Vos estis
lux mundi.

According to the proper law of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is
competent to deal with cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors, “vulnerable adults” are
considered equivalent in law to children for the purposes of trying sexual abuse cases. 

The CDF’s law, Sacramentorum sanctitatis tuetela, offers a very narrow definition of

vulnerable adult: “one with habitually imperfect use of reason,” that is someone with
mental illness or a developmental disability. 
Vos estis contains a far broader definition, calling a vulnerable adult “any person in a
state of infirmity, physical or mental deficiency, or deprivation of personal liberty which,
in fact, even occasionally, limits their ability to understand or to want or otherwise resist
the offense.”

Canonists have noted the difference between the two definitions, and many anticipated
the new Book VI to resolve the two.

Instead, the law seems to note the difference without actually picking one or other class
of person for inclusion. 

Canon 1398 now includes along with minor victims of sexual abuse “a person who
habitually has an imperfect use of reason or with one to whom the law recognizes equal
protection.”

Resolving the conflicting definitions has both philosophical and practical implications.
So does a failure to resolve it. 

On the one hand, defense advocates have criticized drawing legal parity between the
abuse of a child and a sexual relationship between adults. While both categories of
behavior can and should be punishable by canon law, some argue that the special gravity
of sexual abuse of children should be recognized on its own.

On the other hand, whether or not an abuse victim is classified as legally equivalent to a
minor bears directly on how and by whom a case will be handled. Sexual abuse of a
minor is a “most grave crime” in canon law and reserved to the CDF, which handles all
such cases itself or specially delegates local diocesan bishops in some instances.

Other forms of criminal sexual activity are presently treated by the Congregation for
Clergy, another Vatican department, in the case of priests, and the Congregation for
Bishops in the case of bishops.

But if the expanded definition for vulnerable adult found in Vos estis becomes the legal
standard for “most grave crimes,” nearly all cases would be sent to the CDF for trial,
which would almost certainly swamp the system, and cause the already time-consuming
process to grind to a halt. 
On the other hand, if the definition doesn’t become the standard, victims’ advocates
argue, it will be harder for those who are sexually and spiritually abused to see the fullest
measure of justice.

Can you keep a secret?

In 2019, Pope Francis removed from the cover of the “pontifical secret” information
related to cases of sexual abuse, coercion, and grave misconduct. But the “pontifical
secret” still binds Vatican officials and diplomats, who are required to promise “in no
way, under any pretext, whether of greater good, or of very urgent and very grave
reason,” to break the secret.

The secret includes the ordinary business of the Apostolic See, including
recommendations on the appointments of bishops and communications between the
Vatican and national governments. But the secret also covers aspects of financial
administrations, and penal processes and investigations related to a number of canonical
crimes.

While canon law has previously held that a person who violated the pontifical secret
could be punished, the law did not establish a specific penalty for a violation. But the new
norms seem to reemphasize the issue by establishing a framework of penalties for talking
out of school, so to speak.

The new Book VI says that those who violate the pontifical secret could be fined,
suspended from their duties, a suspension from office, or even the loss of office. In
principle, of course, the desire to maintain professional confidentiality is important,
especially for an institution dealing with matters as sensitive as the Roman Curia does.
On the other hand, the measure is likely to be criticized by ecclesial reform advocates
because the new norms do not include any correlative whistleblower protections for
Curial officials concerned about administrative misconduct, malfeasance, or ineptitude.

The ongoing Vatican financial scandal, to say nothing of the McCarrick Report,
demonstrates the importance of providing a mechanism for Church functionaries and
officials to alert their superiors of problems without risking their necks. That the new
penal norms seem to double down on punishment for speaking out publicly, without
providing for secure internal reporting and accountability channels, seems to guarantee
that officials in the Roman curia will continue to believe they have little choice to secure
public accountability but to speak to the press — which seems to be the very thing the
Holy See is interested here in avoiding.

The Ugly
‘Abuse of authority’
A change already praised by victims’ advocates and criticized by advocates for the due
process rights of priests is the addition of “abuse of authority” to the list of aggravating
factors that can lead to dismissal from the clerical state in even singular instances of
“offenses against the sixth commandment” — sexual sins.

To be sure, few would argue that a person who egregiously abuses his office in the course
of sexual misconduct should go unpunished, or be punished lightly. 

The new text establishes that if a person abuses his office or power in order to commit a
canonical crime, the person should be punished more severely by a canonical judge. Few
are likely to disagree with that. But canonists are likely to raise the concern that when the
law allows for the possibility of laicization because of a singular incidence of “abuse of
authority” in the context of sexual misconduct, it may well take things too far. 

Some canonists have already argued that the legal notion of the abuse of authority is a
concept with relatively little canonical jurisprudence, and room for a great deal of
subjective disagreement — in short, something that can be difficult to prove, or disprove. 

There are obviously clear-cut cases of the abuse of office in the context of sexual sin, like
those of Bishops Michael Bransfield or former cardinal Theodore McCarrick. But priests
and defense advocates are likely to continue to argue that it’s unjust for an allegation like
abuse of authority, which can seem legally nebulous, to be the deciding factor between
losing or not losing the clerical state permanently, especially in allegations involving a
single occurrence of misconduct, or as a compounding factor in an otherwise consensual
but prohibited relationship.

At the same time, victims’ advocates will likely continue arguing that if the Church
doesn’t address the way that power imbalances between pastor and congregant can
impact sexual relationships, then abuse of power in situations like McCarrick’s will run
rampant.

The law contains other legal means to drive at abuse of authority as an aggravating factor
in sexual misconduct cases, including the expectation of additional or more severe
penalties. 

But as written, the new norms of canon 1395, § 3 — which provide for the possibility of
laicization —  are likely to be a major point of division between victims’ advocates and
the canonical advocates of priests.   

Porn or porneia?
Canon 1398 of the new Book VI says that a cleric can be dismissed from the clerical state
if he “grooms or induces a minor or a person who habitually has an imperfect use of
reason or one to whom the law recognizes equal protection to expose himself or herself
pornographically or to take part in pornographic exhibitions, whether real or simulated.”

It seems surprisingly specific that a cleric could be punished for inducing or grooming a
minor to participate in the production of pornography, but not punished for grooming a
minor with the demonstrable intent of inducing him to participate in other kinds of
immoral sexual activity.

“Grooming” is already a difficult legal issue to parse, and to prove definitively, which
could be why the Holy See used it in an extremely circumscribed manner. But if it could
be proven clearly that a cleric was grooming a minor for sexual conduct of a different
kind, most would expect that to be an established delict, or canonical crime.

The law may be intentionally specific, and absent clarity, the principles of canonical
interpretation require that it be read that way. But it seems just as likely that the drafters
of the text intended to refer not to “pornographice,” in the Latin, but to “porneia,” a
broader term which refers broadly to sexual sin and misconduct. 

The Vatican will likely face questions about this from canonists in the next few months,
and a clarification, or a change to the text, could be forthcoming.

‘Automatic’ penalties
Something else likely to generate debate among canonists and less expert commentators
alike is the decision to retain latae sententiae, or so-called “automatic” penalties,
including excommunication, for some crimes. 

Since the drafting of the 1983 Code after Vatican Council II, canonists have argued back
and forth about the utility of latae sententiae penalties, which are incurred by a person by
the very act of committing a crime and which do not exist in the Code of Canons for the
Eastern Churches, the universal canon law for Eastern Catholics. 

Those against such penalties argue that, until they are declared by a competent authority,
they lack any public effects for the person who incurs them. In the meantime, they argue,
such penalties create confusion, as people often argue about whether or not a person has
“excommunicated themselves” by a particular action. 

Many have also noted that, so rarely is a latae sententiae penalty formally declared to
have been incurred, it would be more reasonable to simply require the competent legal
authority actually to impose them in every case to begin with.

Those who have argued for retaining automatic penalties for certain offences counter that,
in many cases, there is practically no mechanism for detecting some crimes, like, for
example, procuring an abortion, and no reasonable means for holding a canonical
process. At the same time, the gravity of the crime is such that some provision by the law
is necessary, both for the sake of justice and for the reform of the person who commits
the delict.

‘Automatic’ pastoral confusion?

But even apart from the ongoing substantial debate over latae sententiae penalties, there
is also likely to be debate over the official English-language translation of the new Book
VI, which says that such penalties are incurred “automatically,” rather than “ipso facto,”
as denoted in the official Latin text, and the currently in force norms. 

The distinction might seem pedantic, but canonists have long suggested that there is a
distinction between incurring something “ipso facto” — by the act of a delict having been
committed — and “automatically,” which seems to suggest the mitigating factors
regarding internal freedom, foreknowledge, capacity, and even age which can impede a
person committing an act from having committed the crime of the act.

Again, the distinction might seem pedantic, but canonists have long insisted it can
actually be pastorally important to remind people, for example, women who have
undergone abortions, that there are in fact mitigating factors that can prevent a canonical
penalty from being incurred “automatically.” 

There may well be some pushback on the term “automatic,” and the official translation
may well be quietly challenged before the law actually takes effect December 8.

Changes made to Book VI of the Code of Canon Law were discussed on Tuesday morning at a
press conference in the Holy See Press Office.
Speakers included Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for
Legislative texts, and Archbishop Filippo Iannone, President of the same council.

Goal of the changes

Archbishop Iannone noted that, in recent years, "the relationship of interpenetration between
justice and mercy has at times been misinterpreted" and this has "fed a climate of laxity" in the
application of criminal law. However, recent scandals and irregular situations have led to the
need to reinvigorate canonical penal law. 

The reform, presented on Tuesday and considered necessary and long overdue, "aims to make
universal penal norms ever more suitable for the protection of the common good and of the
individual faithful, more congruent with the demands of justice and more effective and adequate
in today's ecclesial context, which is evidently different from that of the 1970s, the time when the
canons of Book VI, now abrogated, were drawn up. The reformed norms are intended to respond
precisely to this need, offering Ordinaries and Judges an agile and useful tool, simpler and
clearer norms, to encourage recourse to criminal law when this is necessary so that, respecting
the demands of justice, faith and charity may grow in the people of God."
Years following the promulgation
Bishop Arrieta also highlighted his understading of the reasons for the reform, saying that the
discipline contained in Book VI did not meet the expectations it had raised in the years
immediately following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. 
Unlike other texts of the Code that were redefined according to the experience of the norms
given ad experimentum in the post-conciliar period, the important modifications contained in
Book VI did not first have the opportunity to confront the reality of the Church, and were
directly promulgated in 1983. 
"In these circumstances, the Holy See found itself in the need to make up with its own authority
for the shortcomings of the ordinary system of punishment that had been envisaged,
exceptionally reserving for itself - as early as 1988, although effectively only from 2001 - the
leadership of the penal discipline in cases of greater gravity," he explained.
The work process
Bishop Arrieta then explained that this general context in September 2009 led Pope Benedict
XVI, who had concrete experience of the limits of penal discipline due to his many years as head
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "to formally instruct the Pontifical Council for
Legislative Texts to begin the revision of Book VI of the Code of Canon Law."
A study group was set up in the Dicastery with canonists experts in criminal law, initiating the
work meetings that followed for twelve years. 

The work of revising Book VI developed in the context of a very broad collegial collaboration
and a continuous exchange of suggestions and observations. "More than 150 full-bodied opinions
arrived from the consultation, which, after being systematized, served as the basis for the group's
subsequent work, culminating in a new amended Schema in mid-2016."
Then, following a period of reflecion and final consultations, the refinement of the text was
approved by the Plenary Assembly of the Dicastery on 20 January 2020. "This document, with
some further adjustments, mainly in economic matters, was finally fixed by the Pontifical
Council and presented to the attention of the Holy Father who signed the Apostolic Constitution
on the Solemnity of Pentecost, establishing its promulgation."
As a result of the work, of the 89 canons that make up this Book VI, 63 have been modified
(71%), 9 others have been moved (10%), while only 17 remain unchanged (19%).

Three main guiding criteria

The changes introduced in the new Book VI basically respond to three guiding criteria, explained
Bishop Arrieta.
In the first place, the text now contains "an adequate definiteness of the penal norms which was
not there before, in order to give a precise and sure indication to those who must apply them."
The second criterion which has presided over the reform is "the protection of the community and
the attention paid to repairing the scandal and compensating for the damage." Bishop Arrieta
explained that the new text seeks to make the instrument of penal sanctioning part of the ordinary
form of pastoral governance of communities, "avoiding the elusive and dissuasive formulas that
previously existed."
The third objective which has been sought, continued Bishop Arrieta, is that of "providing the
Pastor with the necessary means to be able to prevent offences, and to be able to intervene in
time to correct situations which could become more serious, without, however, renouncing the
necessary precautions for the protection of the presumed offender, as a guarantee of what is now
stated in canon 1321 §1: 'everyone is considered innocent until the contrary is proven'."

Newly-included criminal offences

Concluding his address, Bishop Arrieta went on to note that "the criminal cases grouped in the
second part of Book VI have been reorganised", shifting canons and reorienting the sense of the
headings of the individual titles for the purpose of a better organization.
Amongst these, Bishop Arrieta notes that "the crime of child abuse is now framed not within the
crimes against the special obligations of clerics, but as a crime committed against the dignity of
the person."
The new Canon 1398 therefore includes in this regard actions carried out not only by clerics, but
also crimes of this kind committed by non-clerical religious and by lay persons who occupy
certain roles in the Church, as well as any such behavior with adult persons, but committed with
violence or abuse of authority.