A priest can sexually abuse a child and then use a diagnosis of pedophilia to argue that he deserves less punishment. Church courts have accepted this argument.
Australia’s government conducted an inquiry into institutional child sexual abuse, known as the Royal Commission, and documented its results in a 2017 report that found abusive priests have had dismissals overturned because they were diagnosed with pedophilia. 1 Disciplinary figures disclosed by the Vatican in May 2014 confirm that approximately 2,572 out of 3,420 or 75 percent of priests sanctioned for child abuse cases up until that point received penalties short of laicization. 2
The Royal Commission subsequently asked the Vatican to amend the canons (c. 1341, c. 1321–1324) that protect pedophile priests. The Vatican refused and the same system remains in place with its 2021 revisions. 3 These canons, which have been successfully used by guilty pedophiles to avoid laicization, were established with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law under John Paul II. 4
The key word is “imputability.” In plain English, it means how responsible a person is for an offense. Church law distinguishes between establishing what a priest did and deciding how fully responsible he was for doing it.
A common defense tactic will use this distinction in order to argue that psychological disorder reduces a priest’s ability to control himself in certain situations around young children and/or minors. If the court accepts that argument, his responsibility can be reduced, bringing a lighter punishment than laicization.
Continue reading at Integrity Magazine