An Open Letter to Amnesty International

To: Amnesty International
5 Penn Plaza - 14th floor
New York NY 10001

From: Trevor Blake
P. O. Box 2321
Portland OR 97208

December 25, 2005

Dear Friends:

I am proud to be a member of Amnesty International. I have been a dues-paying member since 2001 and was a supporter long before that. I never write enough letters of support to prisoners of conscience, but I do write them. I have written more letters of support for religious prisoners of conscience than for any other group because I do not support the criminalization of belief. When a person is imprisoned solely for their beliefs, they are unjustly imprisoned. I support Amnesty International because it supports all prisoners of conscience irregardless of their religious, artistic or political views. When we are free to debate our beliefs we have a chance of shedding those beliefs that are shown to be in error. When we attempt to legislate false or unpopular beliefs out of existence, we postpone any chance we have of coming closer to the truth or to resolving the sorts of challenges all societies face.

It is admirable that Amnesty International will take stands supporting prisoners of conscience whose views are unpopular or even harmful; it is also admirable that Amnesty International will take stands supporting the fair trials of those who may indeed have committed terrible crimes. Amnesty International has rightly spoken against the use of torture, imprisonment without trial or representation, extraordinary renditions and other war crimes of the George W. Bush administration. Amnesty International has rightly spoken against similar crimes committed by other governments. All of these stands were made at some risk to the organization, and at times Amnesty International has suffered for its stance. That Amnesty International is willing to stand up for what is just rather than what is merely expedient is why I maintain my membership. But there is one government that, in spite of its well-documented history of abuses, Amnesty International has yet to criticize. That government is Vatican City.

This letter demonstrates that Vatican City, by way of the Roman Catholic Church, has systematically sheltered child abusers for decades. Were these actions carried out by a secular government, I have no doubt that Amnesty International would not hesitate to speak out against such a government. Were these actions carried out by an Islamic government, I have no doubt that Amnesty International would not hesitate to speak out against such a government (as has been the case in 'honor killings'). I suggest it is appropriate for Amnesty International to issue a statement condemning the actions of Vatican City. Is Vatican City an appropriate subject for criticism by Amnesty International? Because Vatican City is a country, and because Amnesty International addresses criminal and immoral behavior in countries, the answer is yes. This open letter to Amnesty International will demonstrate that Vatican City is a country, that Vatican City is responsible for systematic child abuse around the world, and that it is appropriate for Amnesty International to hold Vatican City accountable for this abuse.

Vatican City is a country. Vatican City has formal relations (embassies, diplomats, etc.) with nearly two hundred other countries, is active in the European Union and the United Nations, issues coins and postage stamps, has its own top level Internet domain (.va), and has a volunteer military. That Vatican City is governed by the Holy See - that is, the Roman Catholic Church - does not make Vatican City any less of a country. Iran and Saudi Arabia are no less countries due to their being Islamic theocracies, Israel is no less a country for being a Jewish theocracy, and in the same way Vatican City is no less a country due to its being a Christian theocracy.

Central to the argument that Amnesty International should speak out against Vatican City is the document Crimine Solicitaciones. This document was approved by the Bishop of Vatican City, Pope John XXIII, on 16 March 1962. It was addressed to "all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and other diocesan ordinaries" - that is, it was sent to the majority of Roman Catholic leaders around the world. As a document prepared by the Vatican City government, approved by the Bishop of Vatican City and delivered to the majority of diplomats (clergy) for Vatican City in the world, it is proper to consider the Crimine Solicitaciones as the official policy of Vatican City. That the Crimine Solicitaciones is still the official policy of Vatican City has been confirmed as recently as 2001 by former Cardinal Jozeph Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger is now known as His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and Vatican City.

The Crimine Solicitaciones was not addressed to the general public. The document states it is to be "diligently stored in the secret archives... as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries." The subject addressed in the Crimine Solicitaciones is also to be kept secret: "All these official communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin. [...] I promise sacredly, vow and swear, to observe inviolably the secret in all matters and details which will take place in exercising the aforesaid duty."

I have established that Vatican City is a country, that it is governed by the Pope, that Pope John XXII established Crimine Solicitaciones in 1962, that Crimine Solicitaciones was distributed to the diplomats of Vatican City, and that current Pope Benedict XVI confirmed that Crimine Solicitaciones is still in effect. But what is Crimine Solicitaciones?

Crimine Solicitaciones states that clergy accused of child abuse should be moved to another parish and that the crime should be kept secret. That clergy who were accused of child abuse were moved to another parish and that the crime was kept secret is now known: successful lawsuits against the diplomats of Vatican City have offered convincing arguments that this occurred. But it is less widely known that these were not isolated incidents but instead a systematic policy of Vatican City and its diplomats, and that this policy is still in place. The following are quotes from Crimine Solicitaciones, with my comments in bold:

Was Crimine Solicitaciones meant to be kept secret? "This text is to be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries."

What does Crimine Solicitaciones say is the worst crime? " [...] to have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals [...]"

Are clergy to remain silent about child abuse? What is the penalty if they do not? "Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence [...] Each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae [automatically], ipso facto [by the fact itself] and without any declaration [of such penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff [...] are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. [...] All these official communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin."

Are the abused to also remain silent? What is the penalty if they do not? "The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing the priest and the witnesses [...] And before he is dismissed, there should be presented to him, as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening him, if there is a need, with an excommunication reserved for the Ordinary or to the Holy See."

Are the abused supposed to tell the truth? "In receiving the denunciations, this order is to be regularly observed: First, an oath to tell the truth while touching the Holy Gospels is to be given to the person making the denunciation."

Are the clergy also supposed to tell the truth? "In every way, the judge [the bishop or his designate] is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth."

What happens if the abused don't report the crime right away? "The faithful, however, who knowingly have disregarded the obligation to denounce the person by whom he was solicited, against the prescription of Canon 904, within a month, falls into an excommunication reserved latae sententiae, not to be absolved unless after he has satisfied the obligation or has promised seriously that he would do so."

Should abusive clergy be moved to new parishes? "As often as, in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, it seems necessary for [...] the prevention of scandal or reparation for it, there should be added a prescription for a prohibition of remaining in a certain place."

Did the Pope of Vatican City know what he was approving? "Our Most Holy Father, John XXIII, in an audience granted to the most eminent Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962, deigned to approve and confirm this instruction, ordering upon those to whom it pertains to keep and observe it in the minutest detail."

The Crimine Solicitaciones is unambiguous in its origin, intent and results. But Vatican City is not being held accountable for its policy of systematically sheltering child abuser for decades. Some abusers are being held accountable, some parishes are being held accountable, but in the United States there is no legal accountability for the source of these crimes, Vatican City. This is because Vatican City is a sovereign nation and the Pope, as its head of state, is immune from civilian prosecution. Lawsuits in Tennessee, Kentucky and Texas all included accusations that the Pope of Vatican City was responsible for sheltering child abusers but have refused to hold Vatican City responsible because of the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Priests, bishops and others have been granted diplomatic immunity and thus not held liable for their role in sheltering child abusers.

The Holy See may, however, not be entirely immune from legal sanction for sheltering child abusers. In December of 2005, attorney Jeffrey R. Anderson served the Vatican legal notice that it has been implicated in the 1960s abuse of a boy by a priest in Portland, Oregon. Anderson spent US $40,000 to have the notice translated into Latin and spent three years working through Vatican channels to serve the notice, but the notice has been served. Anderson told the Portland newspaper The Oregonian: "I've never in 24 years of practice ever had the kind of obstruction, obfuscation, delays, difficulties, challenges and nonsense that I've encountered in trying to serve them." This is a legal case that Amnesty International can voice its support for.

Amnesty International has a long and rightfully proud history of criticizing governments that did not break their own laws but which clearly go against human decency. There are many countries in which torture is legal, but Amnesty International speaks out against them. There are many countries in which capital punishment is legal, but Amnesty International speaks out against them. Vatican City is a country through which child abusers were systematically sheltered for decades by people given diplomatic immunity to do so. It is appropriate that Amnesty International should speak out against Vatican City.

I ask Amnesty International to do the following: