Cardinal Fernández knows of cases worse than the Rupnik case. More excuses for judicial delaying tactics.

Víctor Manuel Fernández: "You cannot define a crime which has little precision"

The frequent use of spirituality to obtain sex has led to the beginning of work to define this type of «spiritual abuse», explains the prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith

What led you to propose studying how to define the crime of "spiritual abuse"?

Various Dicasteries frequently received complaints about situations where spiritual elements were used as an excuse or motivation to have sexual relations (of a priest with a catechist, for example). In these cases, there is a manipulation of the people who entrust themselves to a spiritual guide and at the same time a manipulation of the spiritual beauty of our faith to obtain sex.

Why do you think this legal loophole should be addressed in the Code of Canon Law?

Because there is no crime defined on this point and it is necessary and urgent to address it because we have discovered that unfortunately it is not something uncommon. To get around this, canonists turn to canon 1399 because there is an "external violation of a divine law" (in this case a violation of the sixth commandment) and a "need to prevent and repair scandals." But when a serious crime becomes very frequent, it is not convenient to have to refer to a canon so general that in some cases it makes it difficult to apply a severe penalty or an important penal precept.

How would you define this type of abuse in canonical and pastoral terms?

This is the most complex point, and it is precisely what the new study group will have to clarify. Because a crime cannot be defined with little precision, so that then any violation can be denounced as a serious crime or subject to a maximum penalty. That would create a chaotic situation of "everyone against everyone," a widespread suspicion or the risk of adopting an ideology of cancellation. On the other hand, today there is a tendency to quickly ask for “expulsion” from the Church, as if there were no proportionality in the crimes. When everything seems to be of the same gravity, an injustice ends up being committed in the face of particularly serious cases that must be confronted with greater force.

This is a general problem, but in this matter there is a particular risk. For example, let us look at the following sentences: “He surely said those words of St. Bernard to me because he wanted to have sex”, “he transmitted to me an idea of ​​God that led me to depend on him”, “he indicated a strange spiritual task to me because he knew that this would pave the way for a sexual solicitation” or “he gave me a hug that was too intimate with the excuse that he represented Jesus”. Therefore – they conclude – he should be expelled from the Church. These are things that easily acquire an important resonance in the media but it is not always easy to prove them adequately, and even less to apply a maximum penalty to all cases. But there are cases of special perversity, such as having sex in sacred places as if that allowed a special relationship with God.

How will the study group work?

The new study group, chaired by Filippo Iannone [Prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, Ed.], is studying two possibilities: one would be to define a crime, the other would be to interpret existing laws, making explicit the content related to spiritual abuse. I cannot anticipate conclusions or offer further details because that would encroach on the work of others.

For now there are two people who are working in a secretive manner to collect existing background information, either under the name “false mysticism” or under other names. Collecting cases or stories can help to better specify the terms and scope of a definition or to explain – with an authentic interpretation of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts – which existing norms cover these situations.

The note announcing it spoke of “avoiding the overly broad and polysemic expression of “false mysticism”.” Why?

This was briefly clarified in the note published by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith when announcing the new study group. In the dicastery this expression is used above all in a doctrinal sense, which was its original meaning. That is why it is problematic to resort, in order to dispense justice, to the expression “false mysticism,” which is not classified as a crime and has above all a meaning proper to spiritual theology. What is this meaning? False mysticism is called a spiritual proposal (for example, the spirituality of a movement or a group) that is not in harmony with Christian doctrine. In this sense, Pius XII referred to Jansenism as “false mysticism” because it did not fully assume faith in the mystery of the incarnation. There he did not refer to crimes. It is rejected as a spiritual proposal that has the appearance of Christian mysticism, but in reality is “false.” And this is the responsibility of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

But it is not appropriate to use the same expression to condemn a theological-spiritual error (which is not in itself a crime) and also for a serious crime. There is a risk of confusing very different things.

So, why is this expression used in the canonical field?

Some canonists, especially in Spain, resort to the expression “false mysticism” to give theological content to the use of canon 1399 or to indicate the particular gravity of other crimes (such as solicitation in confession, profanation of the Eucharist, abuse of authority, etc.). This is facilitated by article 16 of the new Norms for the discernment of alleged supernatural phenomena, which attributes special gravity to the use of “mystical elements” to “exercise dominion over people or commit abuses.” This is a point that I myself wanted to add to these Norms because it gives substance to the “special gravity” indicated by canon 1399, without the need to use the expression “false mysticism.” But canonists need to typify a crime with another name —“spiritual abuse,” for example— so as not to always have to resort to canon 1399 when judging such a serious, scandalous and frequent crime, and to avoid the confusion that could be generated by the broad and polysemic meaning of the expression “false mysticism.”

What elements are essential to distinguish an authentic mystical phenomenon from a false one?

The expression “mystical phenomenon” seems to refer to an apparition, a vision or extraordinary phenomena of that type. But in reality here we are talking about something broader: because “false mysticism” is any spiritual proposal that is not faithful to some element of the authentic Christian faith. In some new spiritualities there are often anthropological, Christological, and ecclesiological errors. For example, in history there have been condemnations of spiritual movements that had become pantheistic, that proposed a “fusion” with God, that rejected the humanity of Christ in spirituality or that denied the value of prayer of petition, for example. These are different cases of “false mysticism” that the DDF judges in the Doctrinal Section as errors, not as crimes. Sometimes these things appear when giving the nulla osta to causes of beatification, for example.

But when we speak of a possible crime of “spiritual abuse” it is not necessary that there are errors, that the spiritual proposal used as a basis is “false”. Even the catechism of the Church or the writings of St. John of the Cross could be used as an excuse to manipulate another and commit a crime of “spiritual abuse”.

What challenges does this criminal classification pose in the discernment of alleged supernatural phenomena? 

The relationship with these phenomena occurs because in some cases the supposed visionaries themselves, for example, have been abusers, or have incorporated sexual elements into "spiritual" encounters. Or because the promoters of this devotion have made this inappropriate and immoral use.

How can we protect the rights of accused persons, avoiding unfair trials or misunderstandings in this area?

This issue, like any other, can be used to take revenge on someone. Intentions that do not exist can also be assumed, or a very sensitive person, in a difficult moment of his or her life, can misinterpret something that was not really so or was not so to that extent. But an adequate canonical process protects everyone, the supposed victims and the supposed criminal. It is enough to take care of the guarantees provided by the Law. The possibility of an appeal or recourse exists precisely because errors can be made, but there is a possibility of correcting them.

Is there an urgent need to resolve the Rupnik case, for example, which has been delayed?

In reality I am thinking of many other cases, and some perhaps more serious but less publicized. We cannot think of a new law for just one case, because that would limit the vision and harm the objectivity of the work.

With regard to the Rupnik case, the Dicastery has concluded the stage of gathering information that was in very different places, and has made a first analysis. Now we are already working to establish an independent tribunal that will move to the final phase through a criminal judicial process. In cases like this it is important to find the most suitable people, and that they accept.

How do you hope that this classification will serve to prevent abuses and restore the trust of the faithful?

I think that it will help the faithful to perceive the maternal care of the Church. But it will also help to avoid that dangerous form of clericalism that leads some priests to believe that they are authorized to do anything because of the "sublimity" of their consecration. In this sense, I believe that we are at a turning point.

In any case, we must also ensure that it does not produce an undesirable effect of distrust in everything spiritual, as has occurred in history with the condemnation of certain spiritual movements.

What message would I like to send to those who have suffered this type of abuse?

I find it especially sad that someone has made them suffer by using such beautiful and sublime things. It may have been due to malice and perversion, or illness, or the poor spiritual and human formation they received. In any case, it is a painful wound in the Body of Christ.

We can always make a journey of healing and remember that there is a spiritual treasure in the Church that we must not lose, even if some have distorted or deformed it. Christ loves us, even if some have disfigured his face.

And if it pains us to think that others may suffer the same thing that we have suffered, it consoles us to see that the Holy Spirit is awakening in the Church a strong awareness of the inviolable dignity of every person and of the limits in the exercise of the priestly ministry and leadership in the Church.

Who will judge?

Cardinal Fernandez proposed creating a team to study the classification of the crime of “spiritual abuse” because he wanted to “decisively” address this question “to find a definitive solution that is truly useful for bishops and canonists.” His offices “frequently receive questions related to this point,” the use of spiritual elements for sexual relations. The proposal was first approved “unanimously” at a meeting of the superiors of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Then it was put to the Pope and the prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, Filippo Iannone. “He immediately saw the need to face the challenge.” When this type of crime is canonically defined, the jurisdiction "will probably be" of the dicastery to which the accused is subject. "They may be brought before the Doctrine of the Faith if they are connected with one of the crimes reserved" to it.

Source