Church Militant Canon Lawyer: "pedophelia".. "no longer automatically exculpates an offender from punishment"

Unreported Insider Knowledge of Catholic Sex Offender Loophole Exposed

Canon Lawyer Marc Balestrieri was outed as working behind the scenes, even writing stories anonymously through Church Militant journalists by Mark Hayward of The New Hampshire Union Leader on July 4th, 2022.

Catholic Confidential has been informed that some stories need signing off by various attorneys within the CM workspace. Marc Balestrieri is said to be one of those attorneys by journalists working within Church Militant.

Earlier this year, on April 27th, 2022, leaked emails submitted to the Michigan Attorney Generals Office sent by Marc Balestrieri to a Victim Advocate, and long time investigative reporter Jay McNally reveal knowledge unreported by Catholic media of Canon Law “automatically” exempting guilty sex offender priests from punishment.

“The canonical jurisprudence since Boston has dramatically changed, just because someone is diagnosed by a psychological expert as having suffered from pedophilia at the time of the commission of a heinous act of child sexual abuse, no longer automatically exculpates an offender from punishment or dismissal from the clerical state as a penalty.” - Marc Balestrieri, April 27th, 2022 to Jay McNally

Canon Law commentaries published before and after the Spotlight Investigation by the Boston Globe in 2002 state that Bishops must continue to consider how “pedophelia” (and other sexual disorders) eliminate or decrease punishment for guilty repeat sex offender priests.

“When the facts of a particular case are examined carefully, it may well emerge that the cleric did indeed commit a sexual offence, or a number of them, with a minor; as such, he may be liable to punishment by the criminal law of the State; nevertheless, because of the influence of paedophilia, he may not be liable, by reason of at least diminished imputability, to any canonical penalty, or perhaps to only a mild penalty, to a formal warning or reproof, or to a penal remedy.”

&

“The matter of imputability is of fundamental importance in considering each of these offences, and not least the third mentioned above [c. 1395-2, child abuse]. Before imposing any penalty for such an offence, the ecclesiastical authority must be morally certain that there has been an external violation of the law which is gravely imputable in the sense explained above at Can. 1321 §1. Among the factors which may seriously diminish imputability in such cases is paedophilia. This is described as ‘the act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with pre-pubertal children as a repeatedly preferred or exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement’.1 Those who have studied this matter in detail have concluded that proven paedophiles are often subject to urges and impulses which are in effect beyond their control.”

- (Canon Law Letter & Spirit, 1995, c. 1395-2, pg. 805, citing Thomas Doyle among other canon law experts & academic works)

Included in the correspondence with Balestrieri was Canon Law Evidence in Penal Cases (2020), which reaffirms prior commentaries by quoting Tom Doyle on pg. 154:

"The presence of a proven grave psychic personality disorder in a person diminishes the imputability of the offender. ‘The older presumptions that any sexual act is a matter of the will have generally given way to evidence to the contrary. This evidence has shown that in situations involving a dis-order, the person has a seriously diminished ability to control his or her actions. [This person] experiences a much higher and more in-tense level of compulsion for sex than one who is not afflicted with a disorder. [ … ]. The fact of the higher level of compulsion must be considered by ecclesiastical superiors as they deal with pedophile clergy. Because of the reduced ability for self-control, it would seem that this order would diminish imputability for a canonical crime.’ 33”

33 Thomas P. Doyle, “The Canonical Rights of Priests Accused of Sexual Abuse,” in Studia Canonica 24 (1990) pp. 345-354. See also, Coram Monier, 21 June 2002, RRDec. 94 (2010) n. 11, pp. 406-40

When asked what date canonical jurisprudence changed so that "pedophelia".. "no longer automatically exculpates an offender from punishment", Balestrieri declined to discuss further in writing citing client confidentiality.

After this article was published, Mr. Jay McNally requested that the story reflect that he was carbon copied on these emails.