France : The Sauvé Report or the Abuse of the Abuse (3)

The first article examined the numbers put forward by CIASE, to question them. They appeared implausible, in particular because the report assigned a number of victims per abuser which is absolutely not credible.

The second article examined the explanatory reasons provided by the Commission, and recorded their glaring insufficiency, as well as the incompetence of the members to make certain judgments which they did not hesitate to propose. It then advanced causes that had already been noted by Benedict XVI.

The Recommendations of the Sauvé Commission

The Analysis of the CIASE report, proposed by eight members of the Catholic Academy of France, contains very interesting remarks on the vocabulary used.

The text notes in fact that “The terminology of the Commission oscillates between ‘préconisations (or encouragements)’ (9 occurrences), ‘proposals’ (5 occurrences) and ‘recommendations’ (39 occurrences). A fine chronology shows the transition from ‘recommendations’ (early 2020) to ‘préconisations’ (September 2021). The Trésor de la langue française defines “préconiser” as to “strongly and insistently recommend something (to someone).”

A way of “demanding” changes from the Catholic Church deemed necessary. This is what Mr. Sauvé declared on October 5 to Le Figaro: “This report will be a failure if most of our 45 recommendations are not acted upon.”

In these 45 recommendations are mixed advice for the treatment of abuse cases – past and future – of which, as Jean-Marie Guénois says in Le Figaro, “more than a third have already been implemented since the 2000s in the world and in the French Church, another large third are already in action in a majority of dioceses, especially since 2015.”

In addition, there are proposals which directly touch on dogma and which should be highlighted to show that the Commission has gone far beyond the red line of its mission.

Recommendation no. 4 proposes to “assess, for the Church in France, perspectives opened by the propositions of the Amazon Synod, in particular the suggestion that ad experimentum,… married men could be ordained as priests…”

As the Analysis notes, the Commission quotes the Instrumentum laboris of the Synod, which is only a preparatory document without official value, unlike the Post-Synodal Exhortation (Querida Amazonia) which did not take up this point. Moreover, this is a misinterpretation, since it is not at all in this perspective that the proposal is made, but in the hope of making up for the lack of vocations.

It should then be noted that this point is of interest to the universal Church, as Cardinal Marc Ouellet reminded the German bishops. He sent them an analysis of their draft Synod Statutes which noted that the subjects to be dealt with, notably the “priestly way of life,” “do not concern only the Church in Germany, but the universal Church, and that these subjects – with few exceptions – cannot be the subject of resolutions and decisions of a particular Church.”

In addition, the text assumes that the marital state would be safer against abuse, and makes it superior to consecrated virginity. The Church, since St. Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians 7:38, teaches the contrary.

Finally, the proposition is absurd. It is explained in the report that the vast majority of abuse – in general – is committed within the family circle. Do we want to add this risk factor for priests?

This is why this recommendation is impious, contrary to Sacred Scripture and to the Tradition of the Church on virginity, and finally absurd.

Recommendation no. 8 conceals an attack on the secrecy of confession: “Communicate a clear message, issued directly by the Church authorities, telling those confessing and the faithful that the seal of confession cannot derogate from the obligation laid down by law and the [French] Criminal Code – which is, in the Commission’s opinion, compatible with the obligation of divine natural law to protect the life and dignity of the person – to report to the judicial and administrative authorities all cases of sexual violence inflicted on a child or a vulnerable person.”

In other words, a Commission having no competence in this area, opposes positive divine law, preached by Jesus Christ, and civil law, in defiance of the martyrs of the confession who died  for having kept quiet about that which had been entrusted to them in this sacrament.

Moreover, the analyzes which followed the incident provoked by a word from Bishop Eric de Moulins-Beaufort, have shown that this obligation is non-existent. The proposal is clearly and to say the least impious.

Recommendation no. 11 attacks the practice of morality in the Church: “Examine [passer au crible] how the paradoxical obsession of Catholic morality on issues of sexuality could be counterproductive in the fight against sex abuse.”

The vocabulary – yet another remark from the Analysis – is particularly vivid, for the term used, “passer au crible,” means “to submit something to a selection, a ruthless criticism.”

This unhealthy fixation of the Church on sexual matters exists only in the minds of depraved men. Throughout its long history, the Church has exalted chastity in all its forms: perfect by the vow of virginity, conjugal between spouses. This is moreover a specificity of its own. It is rather the proposition that shows a fixation. It is wrong.

Recommendation no. 23 (and no. 24) gives a painful explanation of the systemic aspect: “Recognize, for the entire period analyzed by the Commission, the civil and social responsibility of the Church, irrespective of individual fault and the criminal and civil liability of the perpetrators of sexual violence and, as the case may be, Church officials.”

In other words, a responsibility of Christ Himself in some way, as Head of the Mystical Body. This is the contempt of a well-known rule: “abusus non tollit usus,” or “abuse does not eliminate use.” Just because some people have abused – and terribly- their job, does not mean that in itself it is bad and generated the observed abuses.

By this yardstick, we should recognize outright that families in themselves generate abuse, and perhaps ask that they be abolished? While the vast majority of families do not experience any abuse in themselves. Just as 97% of priests have lived their priesthood in purity and honor.

Recommendation no. 34 targets power in the Church: “The commission considers it appropriate to scrutinize (passer au crible):

– the hierarchical constitution of the Catholic Church in view of internal disagreements concerning its own understanding of itself: between communion and hierarchy; between apostolic succession and synodality; and, essentially, between affirmation of the authority of pastors and the reality of grass roots practices which are increasingly influenced by democratic practices;

– the concentration of the powers of order and of governance in the hands of the same person, which leads to an insistence on the rigorous exercise of power and, in particular, on respect for the distinction between the internal forum and the external forum.”

The claim made by the Commission confuses the mind. And anyone who knows the demands of the German Synodal Path immediately recognizes the kinship.

The authors think according to a model of society identified with modern democracy. They completely overlook the fact that Christ did not found the Church in this way. As Tradition, with St. Pius X, says, the Church has a monarchical and aristocratic structure.

Monarchical, because there is a supreme head, the Sovereign Pontiff, who has full power over the Church as recalled in the First Vatican Council. And, in each diocese, the bishop has the same power known as “pastoral.” It is part of the divine constitution of the Church.

That is why this proposal approaches heresy, because this power has always been recognized and taught by the Church as coming from her divine Founder.

Recommendation no. 36 states: “The Commission believes that, with regard to the principle of equal dignity, a far greater presence of laypersons in general, and women in particular, is required amongst the deciders of the Catholic Church.”

This recommendation is found iteratively in the German Synodal Path. We must first make the same remark as in no. 4, on the sole competence of the universal Church.

But then we must affirm that it is de fide that the subject of sacred ordination – priestly or episcopal – can only be a male individual. And that it is the hierarchy, who joins forces with the priests without being part of them, who possess the powers given by God, as was said in the previous number.

The proposal therefore deserves the same criticism and the same theological appreciation.

Recommendation no. 43 picks up the attack on the secrecy of confession and should be associated with no. 8.

On the other hand – and it should be noted – Recommendation no. 45 proposes measures to keep the necessary distance between the priest and the faithful and to avoid an intimacy which can easily prove to be dangerous. These are traditional in the Church – but much less so today: “Ensure that priests’ and monks’ living and working space is organized with regard to the need for vigilance, taking particular care to: keep bedrooms separate from any visitor/third party reception space. Keep a physical space between the priest and penitent during confession.”

The Real Solution

Promoting structural change requires proving that this is the problem. However, nothing proves it, quite the contrary. The constitution of the Church, as desired by her divine Founder, is oriented towards the sanctification of souls.

But the real solution necessarily begins with a renewal of the priestly spirit – and of course the episcopal spirit – for a real search for holiness. Because these culprits who have left so much misery behind them, behaved like deserters on this point.

As they are sinners, they are not of the Church. As Cardinal Charles Journet aptly said: “the border of the Church passes through my heart,” which every Christian can say. It is because they did not want to follow the teaching of Christ and his Church, with all the practical elements that this entails, that they went astray.

Alas! the fault of the priests is always the most terrible: corruptio optimi, pessima. “The corruption of the best – in terms of their place in the Church – is the worst.” As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre pointed out, most of the heresiarchs in the history of the Church have been priests or bishops.

The Church has unfortunately known many other crises where the moral values of the clergy has been deeply affected: it suffices to quote the Nicolaitan crisis in the 11th and 12th centuries, that is to say the misconduct of many priests. and even bishops, living in marriage.

The Gregorian reform – of St. Gregory VII – aimed to abolish these terrible abuses. St. Peter Damien fought vigorously against this scourge. And what most contributed to reestablishing discipline was the foundation of new orders, steeped in the spirit of the Church and of Christ, in which the popes have placed their confidence and which have admirably served the Church in this recovery effort.

But today, the horizon is obscured by the Second Vatican Council, which gradually dried up, in various ways – liturgical, disciplinary, even dogmatic – the sources from which one should draw in order to effect this recovery.

For it is only in the Cross of Christ, fully lived, that salvation is found, and not in an “abuse of the abuse” to try to destroy the Church even more. We know that “the gates of hell will not prevail against her” (Mt. 16:18), this is our hope, and the encouragement to work with all our soul and with all our strength to “restore everything in Christ ”(Ep. 1:10).