From the outbreak of Marist case Six years have passed in the information of this newspaper. From that moment on, there was a before and after: the revelations of victims who have left behind years of fear, shame and silence while the predators went unpunished have followed one another. A social change that ended up having legislative consequences: the reform of the child protection law that limits the prescription of past crimes and establishes mechanisms to prosecute those that occur today. But Spain, in relation to other countries affected by this scourge, remains in the tail end of at least one aspect, that of identification of cases, examination of conscience and reparation of victims by one of the power structures that, even more so in a national-Catholic State such as Spain during the four decades of Franco’s dictatorship, harbored practices of abuse and concealment. In France, for example, it was the hierarchy itself, that is, the Episcopal Conference, which in 2018 decided to commission an independent commission to analyze the cases since 1950. After two and a half years of investigation, it concluded that they had a “systemic nature” and proposed 45 measures to prevent further abuse, in addition to requesting compensation for the victims. If in France, with a secular framework that dates back to 1905, the scourge of pederasty in the Church has been systemic, it is safe to say that the Spanish case can hardly have much less significance. Responsibilities, whether active or passive, question the whole of society, but the first responsibility falls on the Catholic hierarchy: the Episcopal Conferenceas some of the victims have been denouncing the cases, has been -literally- dragging its feet in contrast to the courage of other episcopal conferences and the firm attitude of Pope Francis.
It is in this context – the abandonment of responsibilities by the episcopal leadership and some religious congregations – that the request to create an investigation commission in the Congress of Deputies, presented by United We Can, ERC and EH Bildu, must be framed. The President of the Government seems to have wanted to convert the proposal into a personal initiative, redirecting it towards the creation of an independent commission, under the umbrella of the Ombudsmanmade up of experts, members of public administrations, victims’ associations and the Catholic Church itself.
Unfortunately, it is difficult for the sense of state to prevail in Parliament’s debates and committees, as has been shown on too many occasions. At the midpoint is virtue: it is not about opposing a parliamentary commission with another of an independent naturebut to obtain a broad parliamentary mandate so that this scourge, with deep historical roots, be investigated transparently. What it is about is that the format finally chosen in Congress allows both clarity, impossible without a responsible cooperation of the ecclesiastical hierarchyas the framework of privacy that some victims deserve, with psychological and physical tears that have dragged on in silence for years.