(The 1962 Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani Directive)

Relevant Document Links and YouTube Videos:

    Important Note: Although a link is recently available to a version of Crimen Sollicitationis on the Official Vatican.va website (alleged to be in compliance with a Court Order and/or Legal Settlement Stipulation), the posted version appears to be considerably attenuated (Link).  Notwithstanding similar font size and paragraph properties, printing the Vatican version on standard 8.5" x 11" paper yields 13 pages, as compared to printing the original (authentic 1962 version obtained by CBS News via an attorney from the Secret Archive of the Curia), which yields 39 pages; a significant 26 page difference (Link). Evaluating the two versions alongside, there are numerous omissions in the presently posted Vatican version, particularly of wording that would likely be considered intimidating to accusers (victims). For example; Preliminaries 13 in the Vatican version is missing phraseology detailing procedures on how the accuser should be "expressly threatened" and "should be most seriously warned", etc. Clearly, the key document is the authentic original, in the form it was sent in 1962, to every Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishop and Local Ordinary in the world. The version posted on the Vatican website in 2008 appears to be a conscientiously abridged summary translation of the original Crimen Sollicitationis Mandate.

What is Crimen Sollicitationis?

Crimen Sollicitationis represents a serious pivot in Roman Catholic policy, procedure and strategy for handling sexual misconduct within the Church ranks, ostensibly under the guise of maintaining confessional secrecy, as the Seal of Confession (Sacrament of Reconciliation) only applies to Priests disclosing confessed sins of the of Penitent.  Canon 983 does not in any way apply secrecy on behalf of the Penitent. Notwithstanding, Crimen Sollicitationis appears to be designed to obtain oaths of secrecy from the Penitent in relation to Clergy sexual misconduct. The 1962 Directive authored by then Head of the Holy Office Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (signed by Pope John XXIII) is a lengthy Mandate which imposed the strictest secrecy, ordering sworn oaths of absolute secrecy to be taken by Church officials appointed to make inquiries and hold a trial, as well as everyone involved and implicated in the proceedings. This secrecy is described as "a secret of the Holy Office". Breaking it incurs automatic expulsion (excommunication) from the Church, without any need for a declaration. The oath of secrecy must be imposed on the accusers (victims) and/or denouncers, as well as the accused, who if he/she fails to observe will be automatically expelled by that very act, which by Catholic teaching translates into banishment to hell for all eternity. It contains many pages of lengthy official complex tribunal proceedings which appear to be designed to confer the victim some feeling or sense of justice. Notwithstanding, (possibly unbeknownst to the victim), should a conviction of the sexually abusive priest be realized, stipulates that the guilty priest "transfer his residence to another territory" (Title 4 – 68). As stated at the top of  this Mandate, it was sent to every Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop and Local Ordinary in the world. When reviewing testimonies of victims, it appears that this Directive was followed to the letter (Link). Reprehensibly absent in this document is any form of consolation, solace, support or therapy for the child victims. Recently it was discovered that the Boy Scouts of America kept secret files (Link).

Progression how the Catholic Church handled sexual abusive clerics

    As soon as CBS News uncovered the 1962 Cardinal Ottaviani directive, the secret was out and in the media, eventually costing the Roman Catholic Church $3 billion dollars in litigation and payouts. Understandably, damage control went into full swing, endeavoring to minimize the document’s role and significance.  The basic facts outlined in the document null any attempt to diminish its grievous impact on child victims. It would be prudent to examine the actual Ottaviani directive very carefully to avoid being deceived by the recent explanatory articles written with the cunning ability of Michael Jackson’s defense team attorneys. The actual directive itself would make any Roman Catholic’s blood boil, regarding both the author and those attempting to conceal its true nature. Defenders of this Ottaviani doctrine claim the secrecy is only to maintain the sanctity of the Confessional, notwithstanding that the document clearly broadens the range and scope to before, after and apart from Confession on the very first page. Moreover, articles attempting to diminish the significance of this Ottaviani Directive claim that it does not bar the child victims from making separate charges about the priest's sexual misconduct. In the event the injured party declined absolute secrecy (sought protection and/or justice from the authorities), the directive clearly mandates the molester victims be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for life.  The Ottaviani directive makes this unmistakably crystal clear throughout the document. The child victim could make separate charges, but according to the wording of the document, he/she would be perpetually barred from the Catholic Church.

The bottom line is;

You don't wind up paying out over $3 Billion in Court Settlements, Litigation, Punitive Damages and Restitution (in thousands of cases) if your entirely innocent.

    Preliminary Matters at the beginning of the Crimen Sollicitationis Directive details the framework concerning persons subjected to the jurisdiction of the Mandate.  Preliminary Matters - Part 1 of The Vatican posted version contains the wording: "even apart from confession" while the CBS acquired original 1962 version reads: "whether even outside the times for confession" (for the same corresponding section), which widely broadens the scope of the Directive. In essence, a victim making one confession in his/her lifetime would be subject the jurisdiction of the Mandate.

1. It’s immediately obvious that the document was specifically designed to silence the victims, as any attempt of the victim to communicate the abuse to authorities results in excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church for life; "restrained by a perpetual silence".

   Preliminaries – 11 (restrained by a perpetual silence) "...all those persons (including victim) in any way associated with the tribunal, or knowledgeable of these matters by reason of their office, are bound to observe inviolably the strictest confidentiality, commonly known as the secret of the Holy Office, in all things and with all persons, under pain of incurring automatic excommunication, ipso facto and undeclared, reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff (can only be reversed by the Pope Himself), excluding even the Sacred Penitentiary".

   Preliminaries – 13 (accuser [victim] must be silenced) "The oath to maintain confidentiality must always be taken in these causes, also by the accusers (victims) or complainants and the witnesses".

   Title 1 – 18 "A member of the faithful (victim) who, in violation of the (aforementioned) prescription of Canon 904, knowingly disregards the obligation to denounce within a month the person (pedophile priest) by whom he or she (victim) was solicited, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one (cannot be reversed, even by the Pope Himself), which is not to be lifted until he/she (victim) has satisfied the obligation, or has promised seriously to do so". This clause appears to be designed with the primary objective of promptly maneuvering supervision of abuse to the Church hierarchy (keeping everything in house), as the denunciation is to the Sacred Penitentiar, Ordinary, or Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (not the "secular authority" as originally mandated by Pope Saint Pius V). Title 1 - 18 illustrates how imperative it is to expeditiously move control of the victim to the jurisdiction of the Crimen Sollicitationis Mandate.

   Title 1 – 21 (secrecy till death)

   Title 1 – The First Knowledge of the Crime – Paragraph 23 (threaten the victim)

2.    The pedophile priest is treated in a protective and opposite manner.

        The Process – Chapter 3 – 48 "The judge should paternally and gently exhort the accused"

        The Process – Chapter 3 – 52 "In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth." But notice that it’s mandatory to bind the victim.

        Title 3 – Penalties – 63 (The greatest penalty possible to the pedophile priest found guilty by the outlined tribunal is being reduced to "lay-brother", and only done when it is considered that there is absolutely no hope of recovery. - Hence the perpetual transfers of pedophile priests and multibillion dollar pay outs)

      Title 4 – 68 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred) "If a priest convicted of the crime of solicitation, or even merely admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory, the Ordinary a quo should immediately warn the Ordinary ad quem of the priest's record and his legal status". It would be reasonable to presume that every bishop who transferred a convicted pedophile priest to another territory, hence creating a new crop of victims, may be just as guilty as the pedophile. He who puts the fox in the hen house is as guilty as the fox.

    Keep in mind that any other institution, upon learning that one of its members is molesting children, would have the God given common sense to contact the authorities. The Ottaviani Crimen Sollicitationis Directive seems to be designed to make the Roman Catholic Church a safe haven for pedophiles, while cleverly and viciously repressing child victims. Notwithstanding Mark 9:42 – "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."  How could those defending this reprehensible Ottaviani directive consider that this verse would not also apply to them? Has the Roman Catholic Church transgressed to the temple during the times of Christ? Would Jesus again charge: "You brood of vipers"? (Matthew 12:34).