I welcome your article on priest child molesters entitled “Mgr Scicluna signals Vatican’s shift on sex abuse” (TMIS, 27 September). Your correspondent mentioned cases of cover-ups in the USA, Ireland and Italy, but failed to mention similar cases in Malta and Gozo. I sincerely hope that this shift will lead the Vatican to stop being more concerned with defending the offender and the Church’s reputation than protecting the rights of past and future victims.

At present, the Maltese Curia’s so-called “Response Team” investigates sex abuse cases by priests. The ‘team’ is appointed by the Archbishop and made up of priests and laypersons who are close to, and trusted, by the Church. It is an ingenious system of internal investigations carried out behind closed doors. The secretive sessions of questions and answers are intended simply to enable victims and their relatives and witnesses to let off steam by giving vent to their hurt feelings. The ‘Response Team’ sends its conclusions to the Archbishop. If there is enough evidence, the latter sends the file to the Vatican, which may defrock the offending priest.

All this takes place in the greatest secrecy. Our Archbishop has never felt the need to warn the Maltese public about these dangerous child molesters, for example, by a press release. Publicity is most desirable as a way of preventing future abuses as priest child molesters typically have multiple victims. The files are buried forever in the Curia’s sacred and secret archives and nobody will ever know who the dangerous paedophile priests are, where they live, how many children they have harmed, or what other incriminating evidence the Church might be hiding. Nobody knows how many crimes related to clerical child abuse have gone unpunished.

Our bishops would do well to examine their conscience and see if they can justify the Catholic Church’s excuses for systematically concealing these abuses. Child abuse is not only a sin; it is also a heinous crime. Our bishops should co-operate with the police authorities to ensure the protection and welfare of children.

The Church needs to face this scandal head-on and take action. There should be a whole-hearted commitment to change. I see no valid reason why mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse to the competent authorities, which is obligatory in the case of teachers and social workers among others, should not be extended to bishops.

Every person, whether a layman or a clergyman, who sexually abuses a child should be answerable to the laws of the land.

The Church’s reluctance to co-operate in bringing such criminal priests to justice is badly tarnishing its credibility in the eyes of the faithful, and does it more harm than good. In the meantime, anybody harbouring well-founded suspicions of child abuse would be better advised to refer matters directly to the competent police authorities and not waste time going to the Curia.

Let us bear in mind that once a priest always a priest, and once a child molester always a child molester.

Louise Vella

MOSTA