Le Rapport Sauvé

Jean Marc Sauve CIASE France abuse

Former French priest, Father Bernard Preynat, spent over a decade abusing boys in a scout troop. A quarter-century later, some of the survivors of Father Preynat’s crimes found each other, and they organized a group.

Their courage in speaking about what had happened to them ultimately led to the production of a movie, By the Grace of God.

Father Preynat was indicted, both civilly and canonically. The sitting Archbishop of Lyons, who had perpetuated the cover-up, was also indicted. Father Preynat was ultimately defrocked and jailed.

All of this made the 2018 “Catholic Summer of Shame” particularly intense in France. That fall, the French bishops’ conference (known by the French acronym CEF) ceded to intense public pressure and commissioned an independent study on the problem of sexual abuse in the French Catholic Church.

The independent commission came to be known as CIASE. The Church provided 2.6 million euros; the members of the commission gave 1.2 million euros-worth of volunteer time. Their final report, released this past Tuesday, has generally been called Le Rapport Sauvé in France, after Jean-Marc Sauvé, the career government official who chaired the commission.

This sounds like our American “John Jay Report” of nearly two decades ago. But Le Rapport Sauvé contains much more information and insight. Our John Jay researchers worked only with information provided by US dioceses, and all the documents handed over to them had all names blocked out. (And let’s not forget that the most-prominent churchman involved in commissioning the John-Jay report was Theodore McCarrick.)

The CIASE in France, on the other hand, apparently had free access to all diocesan and religious-order archives, including secret archives. And the CIASE also beat the bushes for victims to come forward.

This transformed the CIASE’s effort into something fundamentally different from what the John Jay researchers did here in the US. The John Ray report gives statistics without any human connection to the victims; Le Rapport Sauvé, on the other hand, became primarily a means for survivors to speak the truth about what had happened to them.

As the English summary of the French report notes:

The CIASE, therefore, is not blind to the fact that, even if representatives of the French Catholic Church wanted the Commission to be set up, it is mainly thanks to the determined action of victims of violence that it actually came to be created, and it is beholden to these people to study their cases.

International news organizations have covered the release of the CIASE report, and for good reason. These media reports have focused primarily on the statistics provided by the CIASE.

The CIASE report grants that its staggering estimate of over 300,000 total victims of sexual violence does not square easily with the number of perpetrators reported. It would work out to 70 victims per criminal, a number higher than is generally thought to be normal.

On the other hand, though, experience has taught us that almost all statistical analyses of criminal sex-abuse actually under-count the real totals.

The report notes:

Such statistics must be treated with caution. The silence of the victims and of the Church inevitably limits our knowledge of the facts.

Our friend Chris O’Leary has done a helpful short video to explain how the average criminal priest sex-abuser could in fact have 70 victims or more in total:

But Le Rapport Sauvé offers much, much more than just numbers. It appears to contain genuine insight into the problem, offered with both humility and conviction. I for one believe that this report is one of the best things to happen in our Church in our lifetimes.

The CIASE promises that a full English translation of the report will be available on-line by the end of the year. In the meantime, I offer some quotes from the 30-page English summary.

Faced with this scourge, for a very long time the Catholic Church’s immediate reaction was to protect itself as an institution, and it has shown complete, even cruel, indifference to those having suffered abuse…

It was only from 2010 that the Church began to recognize victims when it started reporting cases to the judicial system, imposing canonical sanctions and accepted that dealing with aggressors should no longer be an internal affair.

It is not that the violence was organized or accepted by the institution (although this did happen in a very small number of communities or institutions), rather that the Church did not have any clear idea how to prevent such violence or indeed even see it, let alone deal with it in a fair and determined manner.

The Church did not have any clear idea how to prevent such violence or indeed even see it, let alone deal with it in a fair and determined manner.

canon law codex canonici

Canon Law

This past summer, we took note of how our Holy Father revised the Code of Canon Law. The CIASE, however, finds the revision wholly inadequate to deal with the reality of the crisis:

In analyzing factors specific to the Catholic Church which might help explain the sheer scale of the phenomenon, and the Church’s inappropriate reaction to it, the Commission firstly looked into the specificities of canon law, as to a certain degree the inadequacy of the Church’s response to the phenomenon lies in the shortcomings of this law.

Canon law was conceived, above all, to protect the sacraments and reform the sinner. The victim has no place in this law. Canon law, even its criminal aspect, is totally ill-adapted to the repression of sexual violence, which, incidentally, it never refers to by name. The Commission reached the conclusion that canon law is entirely inadequate with regard to fair-trial standards and human rights in a matter as sensitive as the sexual abuse of children.

Despite taking into account the reform of the criminal section of the Code of Canon Law due to come into force on 8 December 2021, in the light of the bleak observations made in the second part of the report, the CIASE nonetheless pleads for a wide-ranging overhaul of canon law in criminal matters, and in dealing with and sanctioning offences. This should begin with a clear definition of the offences in the Code of Canon Law and their implementing legislation, specifying applicable reference standards by establishing a scale of the gravity of offences and by distributing a collection of case law in the matter.

Secondly, canonical criminal procedure needs to be reworked and aligned with basic fair-trial rules, thereby giving victims a place in canonical procedure, which is not the case today.


The Seal of the Confessional

In France, this has quickly become the most controversial part of the report:

The Church must issue precise directives to confessors regarding the seal of confession. Confessors must not be allowed to derogate, on the grounds of the sanctity of the seal of confession, from the obligations provided for by the [French] Criminal Code, which are compliant with those of natural and divine law, which provides for the protection of a person’s life and dignity, to report to the competent authorities cases of sexual violence inflicted against a child or a vulnerable person.

This is not to question the seal of confession generally; but within the scope of sexual violence inflicted against children, a reminder is issued that the letter and the spirit of the law of the French Republic (Articles 223-6, 226-14, 434-1 and 434-3 of the Criminal Code) apply to every single person on French territory.

[The French laws cited require anyone aware of imminent danger of physical harm to another to alert the authorities.]

The French Bishops’ Conference quibbled with this recommendation. I think that we should recognize the point: It is precisely the inviolability of the seal of the confessional that produces a forum in which a criminal might confess everything. (And in which a victim might begin the process of speaking the truth about what happened.) Without the absolute secrecy, such conversations cannot happen. 

A French government minister has asked the president of the Bishops’ Conference to come and explain; the Archbishop agreed. The meeting is scheduled for next week.

I think this particular controversy will blow over. The French government issued a finding in 2004 that the secrecy of the confessional does not infringe on mandatory-reporting laws.

In another context–implementing Child-Protection policies–the CIASE adds this sensitive observation:

While it is convinced of the merits of such policies of prevention and practical provisions, the CIASE is not blind to the risk entailed by undue rigidity and “protocolization,” so little in keeping with the vocation
of the Church–indeed with any healthy human relationship–and which could potentially asphyxiate relationships. Similarly, too much transparency can be detrimental to intimacy and lead to a paradoxical
climate of surveillance and suspicion. The balance is fragile but necessary in order to clamp down on risk without distorting human relationships.

Ecclesiastical Obedience

The content of seminarian training should include the importance of critical thinking, particularly about issues of authority and obedience…

During all types of catechism, the faithful, particularly children and teenagers, should be taught the importance of listening to one’s conscience with critical intelligence under all circumstances.

With Chris O’Leary, we have earlier considered here the path of “transitional justice.” The CIASE does not use that term, but instead proposes:

“Reparative Justice”

The recommendations made by the CIASE to try and overcome the trauma caused by sexual violence, and the shroud of silence covering it, are not conceived in a spirit of “turning the page,” because in all the testimonials–which the Commission very much hopes echo loudly through its report–the first cry is for justice.

In other words, before proclaiming “it must never happen again,” the “it” has to be recognized, acknowledged, and described, those responsible for “it” need to be designated and, in as far as is possible, reparation for “it’s” consequences need to be found.

Before proclaiming “it must never happen again,” the “it” has to be recognized, acknowledged, and described, those responsible for “it” need to be designated.

It is not enough for the Church to claim awareness, albeit too late in the day. Or to claim that the past is the past and that for today’s and tomorrow’s children and vulnerable persons the same mistakes will not be repeated. For such a discourse which is consistent with the logic of “helping” victims of historical abuse, more often than not time-barred by the [French] Criminal Code, perpetuates an attitude of non-recognition or denial of what really happened, characteristic of the Church during the period analyzed, and is used as an escape from genuinely dealing with the phenomenon.

This is why the Commission insists on the Church’s need for a process of truth and reparation and that it has to begin with the acknowledgement of responsibility which has so far been avoided.

I think the insight in these paragraphs is profound. Let’s give Chris O’Leary the last word here. He produced another video, reflecting on the CIASE report. It offers a stirring exhortation:

3 thoughts on “Le Rapport Sauvé

  1. “…..[T]he French bishops’ conference ceded to intense public pressure and commissioned an independent study on the problem of sexual abuse in the French Catholic Church.”

    Praise God for Le Rapport Sauvé and the unprecedented access to Church archives the investigators were able to obtain. And for the courage of those abused to publicly share their experiences.

    Intense public pressure. No doubt some of the French clergy were instrumental in providing French citizens with information, guidance, facts, and background during the 2018 “summer of shame” that informed the intense public pressure. Maybe even through a blog.

    Maybe only one or two French priests acted as a sort of vox populi during that summer. And maybe their voice made all the difference in the world to the success of the commission.

    And to the cause of justice and healing for the victims.

  2. I’ll have to read up more on the abusive priest/scoutmaster Preynat and the details of his case.

    I agree with your highlighting of the bold-faced excerpts from the French report, those are well said, but I’m a little concerned about slipping back into a “the problem is the process” paradigm, which in the past you’ve expertly and eloquently rebuked on this blog. I think the focus on bad process actually serves to give cover to the Church by making an excuse. I believe that we’ll have more success putting the focus on the moral failings of the clergy who knew about ongoing/contemporary abuse but who did none of what any decent, moral Christian would do. Any process has to have moral people to put it into process, so righteous people are always prior to process.

    I should say that out of fairness I believe you should mention that Preynat’s cardinal archbishop Barbarin had his conviction overturned on appeal. My understanding is that the bishop knew about decades-old abuse that he was told had stopped, but not ongoing abuse. The thing that made Boston such a scandal is that ongoing abusers were simply re-assigned, maybe after some token therapy. That doesn’t seem to be true in the Preynat case (like I said I have to read up) and as such I think puts the actions of his hierarchy in a different class.

    I just think that to be successful, The Movement has to limit its focus to the most egregious behaviors, otherwise we’re going to spread our finite selves too thin on a mission-impossible of trying to eradicate all sexual abuse in the Church or in the world, however laudable that aim.

  3. Chris’s exhortation is stirring indeed. I don’t know of anyone who has such an airtight case for getting such a high-ranking Churchman to resign as he does. I hope folks continue to support his efforts through his GoFundMe.

    I could be very wrong, but his opinion that “nothing has changed” with respect to children being safe in the Church sounds too pessimistic to me. I don’t say this to quibble with the man, or to suggest there isn’t much more to be done, but rather to encourage those like him that their immense sacrifices and efforts are in fact having a very real effect. That is, I can’t imagine ANY priests still cut boys’ hair in their rectory bedroom like his assailant, or take teens on unchaperoned overnights like Ms. Ianni’s assailant, or get jobs at Jesuit schools despite past molestation like Mr. Windmann’s assailant.

    The way I see it the full repentance that justice demands, like an adequate sacramental confession, requires three necessary steps. It’s like if I grow up in the Corleone family but come to see the error of my ways and decide to get out of the family business and go legit. Step 1) is Conversion, the changing of my behavior to stop committing the sins/crimes I was committing. But I can’t stop there.

    Step 2) is Confession, whereby I have to admit EVERYthing I’ve done, what money I stole, whom I defrauded, or, as the French Report put it well, “what the IT is.” Step 3) is Compensation, whereby I seek out the people I defrauded, “beat the bushes” as you say, or as the gospel puts it, repay them four-fold and seek to make restitution to those I stole from. Without all three steps, the sin persists.

    It’s probably the case the Church isn’t even doing Step 1 well like Chris says, but at least they’re agreeing it’s necessary. In my opinion, the big problem here is that the Church is acting like they can stop there—they don’t even admit the necessity of Steps 2 and 3. These would require full openness about who knew what and when and where, including full assignment histories of all credibly accused, and a pro-active (not re-active) pursuit of all the yet-unknown victims whom we know MUST be out there. As long as they continue to ignore these critical steps to repentance, the sin of this Scandal will remain in the Church, weighting it down, and compromising our mission.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s