WRITTEN QUESTION E-2613/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI),Marco Cappato (NI) and Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission. Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction issued by the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office of the Holy See to cover up sexual abuse by clergy.
Date: 2003-08-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Catholicism, EU relations, Holy See, confidentiality, diplomatic relations, human rights, interinstitutional relations, judicial cooperation, sexual offence

C 88 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

In general, responsibilities in the field of culture remain with the Member States. The competences of the
Community are limited.

Concerning the excavations at ancient Salamis, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of the
Honourable Member. There is no legal basis for the Commission to undertake action in this case.

(2004/C 88 E/0111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2613/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI),
Marco Cappato (NI) and Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject: Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction issued by the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office

of the Holy See to cover up sexual abuse by clergy

On 6 August 2003 the American CBS network revealed a document of
the ‘Supreme and Holy
Congregation of the Holy Office’ (now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but originally
the Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition) which had been kept secret since 1962.

This document, entitled the Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction, is addressed to all Patriarchs, Archbishops,
Bishops and other diocesan Ordinaries ‘even of the Oriental Rite’ on the manner of proceeding in cases of
solicitation and is dated 16 March 1962.

Destined to be ‘diligently kept in the secret archives of the Curia’, it gives the clergy strict instructions
regarding the conduct to adopt in cases of sex crimes committed by clergy against members of church
congregations.

The document shows that the Holy See has prescribed, adopted and caused to be adopted, proposed and
imposed upon the ecclesiastical authorities conduct aimed at preventing sex abuse by members of the
clergy from coming to public knowledge and to the knowledge of
the law, upon penalty of
excommunication.

Further, it is clear from the Apostolic Letter ‘Motu Proprio Datae Quibus Normae De Gravioribus Delictis’
signed by John Paul II on 30 April 2001 and from the epistle ‘De Delictis Gravioribus’ of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith signed by Cardinal Ratzinger on 18 May 2001 that, at least on these recent
occasions, the Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction has been reconfirmed and attention again drawn to it in
the light of
the Catholic
ecclesiastical world and of the scandals resulting from it.

the continual spread throughout recent decades of

this true scourge of

As further proof,
cooperate with the judicial authorities and police inquiries and the obstruction of justice.

if that were necessary, there has been widespread condemnation of the refusal to

In view of the European Union’s institutional and diplomatic relations with the Holy See, can the
Commission say:

(cid:1) what enquiries, preventive measures, sanctions and diplomatic steps it intends to take in relation to
the fact that the instructions contained in these documents run counter to the policy of the Union and
of its Member States on human rights and fundamental freedoms and the fight against sexual abuse,
especially that against children and women?

(cid:1) whether it intends to ask the Holy See to remove these instructions which are clearly and explicitly
intended to prevent society, and in particular the administration of justice, from gaining knowledge of
a serious moral, social and political evil?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/107

(cid:1) whether it intends to conduct an enquiry into the relations between the Member States and the
Vatican in order to ascertain whether the legal relations regulating them and giving the clergy
privileges with respect to the law of the Member States are in breach of international and European
law on fundamental rights and freedoms?

(cid:1) Whether it considers that Article 51 of the draft European Constitution urgently needs to be revised in
order to prevent national and European law from creating grey areas and impunity for the clergy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Union is committed to promoting human rights in the world.
In this context, the Union has
underlined the need to combat sexual abuse of children, including in its recent statement on rights of the
child to the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Moreover, the Union strongly
supported the Plan of Action and Declaration of the UN Special Session on Children of May 2002, which
included protection of children from abuse and exploitation as a key goal. The Holy See is a Permanent
Observer at the CHR.

The Union’s position on this issue is, therefore, clear and has been articulated in international fora.
However, the Commission is not competent to take the course of action advocated by the Honourable
Members, nor to intervene as regards Member States’ diplomatic relations.

(2004/C 88 E/0112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2615/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject: New responsibilities for Commissioner Verheugen

Commissioner Günther Verheugen is being given a new area of responsibility. His duties will now include
relations with the EU’s new neighbouring states, namely Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Morocco. This was
formerly the responsibility of the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten.

Why has this area of responsibility been transferred from Commissioner Patten to Commissioner
Verheugen?

Does the Commission also intend to combine relations with other neighbouring states under the heading
of ‘enlargement’ rather than external relations?

Does the Commission not
fear that placing relations with the above countries under the aegis of
Commissioner Verheugen, who is generally known as having special responsibility for EU enlargement,
could raise misplaced expectations among the countries concerned? Such a step may give the impression
that they, too, might qualify for accession to the EU. In what terms were the countries concerned informed
of Commissioner Verheugen’s new responsibilities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Following the conclusion of accession negotiations with ten Acceding States at Copenhagen in December
2002, the Commission has set out an ambitious vision for upgrading political and economic relations with
the Eastern and Southern neighbours of the enlarged Union (1). This was welcomed by the Council, as well
as by the European Council in Thessaloniki in June 2003. On 9 July 2003, the Commission decided on
internal arrangements for its work in this regard. Relations with all countries neighbouring the enlarged
Union remain the responsibility of the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations. The
Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement will
lead the Commission’s work on Wider
Europe, and provide political guidance to a task force consisting of officials from the Directorates-General
for External Relations and Enlargement. This will ensure the Union’s contribution to the creation of an
area of shared prosperity and stability around the enlarged Union, making use of the experience the