Víctor Manuel Fernández: “You cannot classify a crime with little precision”

What led you to propose studying how to classify the crime of “spiritual abuse”?
Various Dicasteries frequently received complaints or complaints regarding situations where spiritual elements were used as an excuse or motivation to have sexual relations (from a priest with a catechist, for example). In these cases, there is a manipulation of 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 defined crime on this point and it is necessary and urgent to address it because we discovered that unfortunately it is not something uncommon. To overcome this, canonists turn to canon 1399 because there is an “external infringement of a divine law” (in this case a fault against the sixth commandment) and a “need to prevent and repair scandals.” But when a serious crime becomes very frequent, it is not advisable 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 criminal 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 classified with little precision, so that later any offense can be reported as a serious crime or subject to a maximum penalty. That would create a chaotic “free-for-all” situation, widespread suspicion, or the risk of adopting a cancellation ideology. 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 have the same severity, an injustice ends up being committed in the face of particularly serious cases that must be faced with greater force.

This is a general problem, but in this issue there would be a peculiar risk. For example, let’s look at the following sentences: “Surely he told me those words of Saint Bernard because he wanted to have sex”, “he transmitted to me an idea of ​​God that led me to depend on him”, “he indicated to me a strange spiritual task because he knew that that was going to pave the way for a sexual solicitation” or “he gave me a too intimate hug with the excuse that he represented Jesus.” Therefore, they conclude, he should be expelled from the Church. These are things that easily acquire significant resonance in the media but it is not always easy to prove them adequately, much less 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, N. d. R.), is studying two possibilities: one would be to classify a crime, the other would be to interpret existing laws making explicit the contents related to spiritual abuse. I cannot anticipate conclusions or offer more details because it would be invading the work of others.

For now there are two people who work in a secretive manner to collect the existing antecedents, whether under the name “false mysticism” or under other names. Collecting cases or stories can help to better specify the terms and scope of a classification or to explain – with an authentic interpretation of the Dicastery for legislative texts – which already existing norms cover these situations.

The note with which he announced it spoke of “avoiding the overly broad and polysemic expression of ‘false mysticism’.” Because?
This was briefly clarified in the note made public 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, to dispense justice, to the expression “false mysticism”, which is not classified as a crime and has, above all, a meaning specific to spiritual theology. What is that 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 it was not referring to crimes. It is rejected as a spiritual proposal that has the appearance of Christian mysticism, but is actually “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 spiritual theological 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 that expression used in the canonical realm?
Some canonists, especially in Spain, use the expression “false mysticism” to give theological content to the use of canon 1399 or to indicate a particular seriousness of other crimes (such as the solicitation of confession, the profanation of the Eucharist, the abuse of authority, etc.). This is facilitated by article 16 of the new Standards for the discernment of alleged supernatural phenomenawhere special gravity is attributed to the use of “mystical elements” to “exercise control over people or carry out abuses.” It is a point that I myself wanted to add to these Norms because it gives content to the “special gravity” indicated by canon 1399, without the need to use the expression “false mysticism.” But canonists need the classification of 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 generate 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, vision or extraordinary phenomena of this 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 usually anthropological, Christological, and ecclesiological errors. For example, in history there were 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 petitionary prayer, for example. They are different cases of “false mysticism” that the DDF judges in the Doctrinal Section as errors, not as crimes. Sometimes these things appear at the time of giving the nulla osta to causes of beatification, for example.

But when we talk about a possible crime of spiritual abuse, it is not necessary that there be errors, that the spiritual proposal used as a basis be “false.” Even the catechism of the Church or the writings of Saint 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 clairvoyants themselves, for example, have been abusers, or have incorporated sexual elements into “spiritual” encounters. Or because the promoters of that devotion have made that inappropriate and immoral use.

How to protect the rights of accused persons, avoiding unfair trials or misunderstandings in this area?
This topic, like any other, can be used to get revenge on someone. Intentions that do not exist can also be assumed, or a very sensitive person, in a difficult moment in their life, may misinterpret something that was not really the case or that was not the case to that extent. But an adequate canonical process protects everyone, the alleged victims and the alleged criminal. It is enough to take care of the guarantees provided by law. The possibility of an appeal or an appeal exists precisely because mistakes can be made, but there is a possibility of correcting them.

Is there an urgency to resolve the Rupnik case, for example, which is delayed?
In reality I think of many other cases, and some perhaps more serious but less publicized. We cannot think of a new law just for one case, because that would limit the vision and harm the objectivity of the work.

Regarding the Rupnik case, the Dicastery has concluded the stage of collecting information that was in very different places, and has made a first analysis. Now we are already working to establish an independent court that moves to the last 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 this classification will serve to prevent abuses and restore the trust of the faithful?
I think 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 that sense I think we are at a turning point.

In any case, care must also be taken to ensure that it does not produce an unwanted effect of distrust of all things spiritual, as has happened in history with the condemnation of certain spiritual movements.

What message would you 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 will have been due to malice and perversion, or due to illness, or due to the poor spiritual and human training they received. Either way, it is a painful wound in the Body of Christ.

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

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