Rota rules against ‘credibly accused’ clergy lists in defamation suit
Description
The Church’s highest canonical trial court has ruled in favor of an American priest who sued the religious order which released his name in a list of religious “credibly accused” of sexual abuse of minors, according to an Italian media report.
A Nov. 9 report published by La Repubblica said that the unnamed priest had successfully brought a claim for defamation before the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, under the norms of canon 220 of the Code of Canon Law, which bars the “illegitimate harm” of a person’s good reputation — a potentially landmark ruling with sweeping effects for how U.S. dioceses handle accusations of abuse.
The rota functions as the ordinary appellate court for judicial proceedings, and as the court of first instance in cases involving senior level Church institutions and heads of state.
La Repubblica reported that the rota “recently” heard the suit for defamation by the priest against his religious order at the appellate level, but did not indicate if the court’s findings affirmed or overturned a previous judicial verdict.
Sources close to the tribunal told The Pillar that a case concerning canonical defamation and “credibly accused lists” had been brought by an American priest and a ruling issued on June 26 of this year, but declined to confirm the details.
The publication and maintenance of lists of “credibly accused” clerics by American dioceses and religious orders has become common in the wake of the clerical sexual abuse scandals of the early 2000s and emerged to renewed prominence following the Theodore McCarrick scandal of 2018.
Dioceses argue that they are essential tools of accountability in recognizing historical accusations of abuse in which a criminal or canonical trial is not possible, and of transparency in ongoing cases which have not yet been adjudicated.
Critics of the practice argue that it violates the procedural rights of accused clerics, harms the reputation of deceased accused who cannot mount a defence, and prejudices any subsequent legal process.
Various Vatican departments have, for years, condemned the publication of such lists, and opposed the use of potentially prejudicial phrases like “credibly accused,” however American dioceses have largely ignored Roman instructions to halt the practice.
A ruling by the Roman Rota in favor of a priest suing for defamation over the practice would be potentially subject to an appeal to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, but any such appeal would have to be made on narrowly defined procedural grounds.
While the rotal decision would not be enforceable in other dioceses and religious orders, it could trigger a wave of similar actions by other priests who claim they have also had their reputations illegitimately harmed.
A slate of verdicts in those cases could present American bishops and religious superiors with the difficult task of accommodating a Roman legal judgment alongside the advice of civil legal advice on liability — and likely accelerate proposals for an update to USCCB norms and policies for how accusations are handled.
—
The Vatican department, which has responsibility for issuing authoritative interpretations of canon law, issued directives in September last year, before publishing them online in February.
In the guidance, the dicastery’s then-prefect Archbishops Filippo Iannone and secretary Juan Ignation Arrieta, wrote that Vatican guidance came after “a careful examination of the delicate question” of published lists, and said the dicastery had consulted “two esteemed canonists who are experts in the matter.”
Noting the general canonical protection of a person’s good reputation from “illegitimate” harm, the dicastery explained that while “in some cases the harm of good reputation can be legitimized, for example to avoid any danger or threat to individuals or to the community,” it would “not at all be legitimate when such a risk is reasonably to be excluded, as in the case of presumed deceased criminals, where there can be neither a legitimate nor proportionate reason for the damage to their reputation.”
The dicastery added that it is not permissible to publish lists of accused clerics “for alleged reasons of transparency or reparation (unless the subject consents and therefore once again excluding deceased persons).”
The letter stressed that Vatican objection to the practice of publishing lists of accused clerics goes beyond the practical inability of deceased clergy to defend themselves.
According to the dicastery, the core issues are instead fundamental legal principles: the presumption of innocence and the illegitimacy of charging anyone with a crime which was not codified at the time it was allegedly committed: “For example, with regard to the so-called omissions of the general duties of vigilance,” the letter said.
“Such principles,” the dicastery said, “cannot reasonably be overridden by a generic ‘right to information’ that makes any kind of news public domain, however credibly, to the concrete detriment and existential damage of those personally involved, especially if inaccurate, or even unfounded or false, or completely useless as in what concerns deceased persons.”
The letter also noted that diocesan determinations about whether an accusation is credible or “founded” are often made without regard for established legal standards, and “require a relatively low standard of proof,” and “without the benefit of any exercise of the right to defense” for the accused.
Since his election earlier this year, Pope Leo XIV, himself a canonist, has referenced frequently the need to balance the rights of clerics to legal due process against the need to handle all accusations of abuse in a manner respectful of victims.
In September, Leo named Archbishop Iannone to replace him as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops.
Initially, according to canon law, the DDF explained, the bishop is only supposed to determine if the allegation is “manifestly false or frivolous” — that it doesn’t allege a person committing a crime in a place at a time that would be clearly impossible. If it’s not obviously impossible, the bishop is to open a canonical preliminary investigation to determine if the allegation has a minimum “semblance of truth,” a minimum standard of plausibility meant only to assess if further investigation is necessary.
“It must always be kept in mind that the preliminary investigation is not a trial, nor does it seek to attain moral certitude as to whether the alleged events occurred,” the DDF said.
While bishops can, when they consider it prudent, remove an accused priest from ministry before or during the preliminary phase, both canon law and the DDF stress the need to avoid the impression that a verdict has been reached before an actual legal process has begun.
In its 2022 guidelines, the DDF specifically warned against any public statements which “could prejudice successive investigations or give the impression that the fac
United States
