In what stands as a landmark victory for justice and human rights in the Czech Republic, the Constitutional Court recently overturned the decisions of lower courts and reopened the case of a woman who was allegedly sexually abused for years by a Roman Catholic priest. The ruling is a testament to the victim’s incredible perseverance. But for skeptics and humanists, her long and arduous journey to this point is not a story of a system working, but of a system that failed repeatedly—and had to be corrected by a higher, international authority.
This case is a powerful, real-world demonstration of the issues we so often discuss in the abstract: institutional accountability, the protection of the vulnerable, and the crucial role of a secular state in upholding justice, even against powerful religious bodies.
Obstacle 1: The Weaponization of Time
The case was initially dismissed by the Czech police and courts for a seemingly straightforward reason: the statute of limitations had expired. The abuse took place between 2008 and 2013, but the victim only filed a criminal complaint in 2019. From a purely mechanical legal perspective, the case was closed.
But this is precisely where the initial failure lies. As the Constitutional Court, echoing a prior ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), rightly argued, such cases cannot be treated mechanically. The very nature of the abuse—perpetrated by a figure of immense spiritual and psychological authority—creates what the ECHR termed a “climate of subordination and guilt.” The priest was not just an abuser; he was the victim’s spiritual guide, a man she was taught to trust implicitly. This power imbalance fundamentally distorts a victim’s ability to recognize, process, and report abuse in a timely manner. To ignore this psychological reality is to create a legal framework that, by design, protects the abuser.
Obstacle 2: The Twin Walls of Silence – State and Church
The victim’s struggle did not end with a single unhelpful police officer. Her case was rejected by the police, the state attorney, and subsequently by lower courts. This wasn’t an isolated error; it was a systemic failure of the state. But it was not the only wall of silence she faced. The Church’s own internal response to the allegations was not one of transparent investigation and justice, but of quiet removal. According to reports, the priest in question was simply transferred to a position abroad—a classic institutional tactic that prioritizes removing a problem from sight over truly addressing it. Faced with inaction from both the secular and ecclesiastical authorities, the victim had no choice but to take her case to a higher level.
The Intervention: A Ruling from Strasbourg
The turning point came not from within the Czech Republic, but from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In the case of A. B. v. the Czech Republic, the ECHR ruled that the Czech authorities had violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to properly investigate the abuse. They had neglected their duty to consider the victim’s specific vulnerability and the context of control and dependency.
This is a crucial point, especially for an international audience. It demonstrates that when national systems fail, supranational bodies dedicated to human rights can serve as an essential corrective. The Czech Constitutional Court was, in effect, compelled to act by a higher legal authority that recognized the fundamental human rights at stake.
A Pattern, Not an Anomaly
This case, while shocking, should not be viewed in a vacuum. It is a symptom of a larger, ongoing struggle in the Czech Republic over the influence of the Catholic Church in a secular society. This is not about faith; it is about power and accountability. We have seen this pattern before:
- The Vatican Concordat: The ongoing debate about a formal treaty with the Vatican includes deeply problematic clauses, such as the extended protection of “pastoral secrecy” (the Church could extend this “protection” to other its employees). Critics, including myself, have warned that this could be used to create a legal shield, making it even more difficult for the state to investigate crimes like sexual abuse committed by clergy.
- The Istanbul Convention: The fierce opposition from conservative and church-affiliated groups to the ratification of the Istanbul Convention—a treaty designed specifically to strengthen protections for victims of violence—reveals a consistent pattern. The arguments used against it often prioritize abstract dogma over the tangible safety and rights of individuals.
In both instances, the underlying theme is the same: an attempt by a powerful institution to place itself above, or at least parallel to, the laws of the secular state.
A Cautious Victory and a Necessary Warning
The Constitutional Court’s decision is a victory worth celebrating. It affirms that justice should not be blind to the psychological realities of abuse and power. But it is a cautious victory. It was won not because the system worked, but because one woman, with incredible courage, fought until a European court forced the system to correct its own failures.
This case is a stark reminder that the defense of secularism and human rights is a constant, necessary struggle. It requires vigilance against institutional inertia and the abuse of power. While this particular battle was won, the fight for a society where justice is accessible to all, and no institution stands above the law, continues.
Sources:
- Ústavní soud vyhověl stížnosti ženy, kterou měl zneužívat kněz (ČT24)
- Kněz měl zneužívat ženu. Uspěla se stížností, případ se vrací policii (Seznam Zprávy)
- ÚS vyhověl ženě, kterou měl zneužít kněz. Případ znovu otevře policie (iDNES.cz)
- Po zásahu Štrasburku vyhověl Ústavní soud stížnosti ženy, kterou měl zneužít kněz (iROZHLAS)
Leave a Reply