¹ Though A Programnme for Action (2001) (hereafter referred to as ‘the Nolan Report’) makes use of the term ‘order’, communities of consecrated men and women are referred to in the Code of Canon Law (1983) as ‘institutes’. The terms are used interchangeably in this discussion.Google Scholar

² A note on terminology: in Roman Catholic canon law, the term ‘nun’ is reserved to those ‘who are wholly devoted to the contemplative life’ and who observe papal enclosure (cf Canon 667 §3), while the term ‘religious’ is used in the Code in relation to those who belong to apostolic institutes (cf Canons 662–665). In common parlance, however, both of these groups tend to be subsumed under the term ‘nun’. This, therefore, is the shorthand term used in this discussion.Google Scholar

³ Curti, E, ‘Does Nolan go too far?’, The Tablet, (25 May 2002), 11–13, 13.Google Scholar

⁴ Blunkett, David, on CRB website, http:www.crb.gov.uk/.Google Scholar

⁵ There are basic, standard and enhanced disclosures, where ‘enhanced disclosures are for posts involving a far greater degree of contact with children or vulnerable adults’. See the CRB website.Google Scholar

⁶ See the CRB website, as above.Google Scholar

⁷ Canon 220: ‘Nemini licet bonam famam, qua quis gaudet, illegitime laedere, nec ius cuiusque personae ad propriam intimitatem tuendam violare’.Google Scholar

⁸ Childress, J, ‘Privacy’, in A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics (London, SCM, 1993), p 498. See also the Canons relating to an individual's disclosure of something about themselves to another: Canon 240 §1, and Canon 630§§1 and 5.Google Scholar

⁹ See Canon 209, 223; rights are exercised within the Church as communio, and individuals may act to protect the common good, even if it means harming someone's reputation.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Sheehy, G et al. , The Canon Law: Letter and Spirit, (London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1996), p 124. This mentions a number of Canons in this regard: Canon 483§2, Canon 1352§2, Canon 1361§3, Canon 1390§2, Canon 1455§1, and Canon 1598§1.Google Scholar

¹¹ Canon 223.Google Scholar

¹² Canon 1717 §2: ‘Care is to be taken that this investigation does not call into question anyone's good name’; Canon 1390 §2: ‘A person who calumniously denounces an offence to an ecclesiastical Superior, or otherwise injures the good name of another, can be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure’.Google Scholar

¹³ Caparros, E and Aubé, H (eds) Code of Canon Law Annotated (Wilson & Lafleur, Montreal, 2004), p 177.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf the Nolan Report, Recommendations 28 (on supervision); 29 (on obtaining references); 30 (non-appointment); 32 (probationary period); 39 (regarding checks on those already working with children); 41 (on candidates from other countries); 43 (on new posts outside the diocese).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf Recommendation 28, which speaks of the need for supervision as a means of protecting children for all posts (paid or voluntary). See also Recommendation 29 on the need to obtain references for any potential post-holder.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf Recommendation 38: ‘dioceses and religious orders should themselves maintain checks and references on prospective staff and volunteers for the diocese or order, and such records should be consulted by others dioceses and orders as necessary’.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf Recommendation 39: paid workers and volunteers who are already in posts working with children should now be CRB checked.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Recommendation 34.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Recommendation 37. This is not of itself contentious as canon law requires that careful enquiry is to be made of candidates for priesthood and religious life as regards their suitability. See Canon 241 §1, and Canon 642, 1029, 1051. There is also a body of literature on this including the following in the journal Human Development: see eg Costello, T, ‘Psychological Evaluation of Vocations’ 6/4 (1985) 37–41; J Greer, ‘Vocational Assessment’ 20/2 (1999) 28–35; GD Coleman and RL Freed, ‘Assessing Seminary Candidates’ 21/2 (1999) 14–20.Google Scholar

²⁰ COPCA Annual Report 2003, p 18.Google Scholar

²¹ Among these are listed medicine, nursing, dentistry, accountancy and the law.Google Scholar

²² Canon 597 §1: ‘Every Catholic with a right intention and the qualities required by universal law and the institute's own law, and who is without impediment, may be admitted to an institute of consecrated life’. The qualities required by universal law are listed in Canons 641–645, and include requirements relating to age, health, disposition and maturity, as well as a consideration of other ties (such as a marriage bond, being bound to some other institute, or having unmet debts). Canon 645 also allows for an institute's own laws demanding further proof as to suitability (§3), or the superior to seek other information if it seems necessary (§4). Given the fledgling nature of COPCA and the recency of developments in Child Protection, it is unlikely that any CRB provisions have been written into an institute's positive law. However, it is Canon 645 §4 which is of particular interest: ‘Superiors can seek other information, even under secrecy, if this seems necessary to them’. This does not entitle a superior to seek secret information, but rather relates to the method of gathering the information, that is, ‘without making known the fact or the circumstances of the enquiry’.Google Scholar See Beal, JP, Coriden, J, Green, TJ (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Paulist Press, New York, 2000) p 812.Google Scholar This means that ‘the candidate is unaware that the superior is seeking the information’ Hite, J, ‘Admission of Candidates and Formation of Members: Canons 641–661’, in Hite, J, Holland, S, Ward, D (eds) A Handbook on Canons 573–746 (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn 1985), pp 115–168, p 131.Google ScholarHowever, the CRB website makes it clear that Disclosure is a ‘fully consensual process, with the applicant agreeing to an applying for the check’ http://www/crb.gov.uk/. This being the case, it is not possible to obtain further information from the CRB ‘under secrecy’, therefore the practice as proposed by COPCA is not strictly in line with this part of the canon. Further, Hite believes that in such cases where further information is sought, ‘the superior should be motivated by a sufficient cause’ (p 131), which suggests that such information is not looked for as a matter of course, in contradiction to the COPCA requirement which advocates it for all new applicants to priesthood and religious life.Google Scholar

²³ Volunteering organisations where regular duties include working with, caring for, supervising, training, or being in sole charge of children or vulnerable adults. The key term here is ‘regular’.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Nolan Report, Annex F.Google Scholar

²⁵ Canon 207 §2.Google Scholar

²⁶ Canon 573 §2.Google Scholar

²⁷ Canon 573 §1.Google Scholar

²⁸ O'Hara, E, ‘Norms Common to All Institutes of Consecrated Life: Canons 573–606’ in Hite, J, Holland, S, Ward, D (eds) A Handbook on Canons 573–746 (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn 1985), pp 31–58, 33.Google Scholar

²⁹ Sweeney, BJ, The Patrimony of an Institute in the Code of Canon Law: A Study of Canon 578, (unpublished dissertation, Pontificia Studiorum Universitas A S. Thoma Aq, in Urbe, Roma, 1995).Google Scholar

³⁰ See Komonchak, JA, ‘Subsidiarity in the Church: The State of the Question’ (1988) 48 The Jurist 298–349.Google Scholar

³¹ Green, TJ, ‘Subsidiarity during the Code Revision Process: Some Initial Reflections’ (1988) 48 The Jurist, 48, 771–799, 797.Google Scholar

³² Sweeney, p 91.Google Scholar

³³ Cf Canons 383, 391.Google Scholar

³⁴ Canon 586.Google Scholar

³⁵ Canon 681 §1 and Canon 683 §1.Google Scholar

³⁶ Canon 678. See also Canon 756 §2.Google Scholar