The Independent News Source
NCR classifieds - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis
by John L Allen Jr on Mar. 26, 2010
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionIntense scrutiny is being devoted these days to Pope Benedict XVI's history on the sex abuse crisis. Revelations from Germany have put his five years as a diocesan bishop under a spotlight, and a piece on Thursday in The New York Times, on the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy of Milwaukee, also called into question his Vatican years as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Despite complaints in some quarters that all this is about wounding the pope and/or the church, raising these questions is entirely legitimate. Anyone involved in church leadership at the most senior levels for as long as Benedict XVI inevitably bears some responsibility for the present mess. My newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, today called editorially for full disclosure about the pope's record, and it now seems abundantly clear that only such transparency can resolve the hard questions facing Benedict.
Yet as always, the first casualty of any crisis is perspective. There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion. Bringing clarity to these points is not a matter of excusing the pope, but rather of trying to understand accurately how we got where we are.
The following, therefore, are three footnotes to understanding Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis.
1. Not the 'Point Man'
First, some media reports have suggested that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger presided over the Vatican office with responsibility for the sex abuse crisis for almost a quarter-century, from 1981 until his election to the papacy in April 2005, and therefore that he's responsible for whatever the Vatican did or didn't do during that entire stretch of time. That's not correct.
In truth, Ratzinger did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001, four years before he became pope.
Bishops were not required to send cases of priests accused of sexual abuse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2001, when they were directed to do so by Pope John Paul II's motu proprio titled Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Prior to that, most cases involving sex abuse never got to Rome. In the rare instance when a bishop wanted to laicize an abuser priest against his will, the canonical process involved would be handled by one of the Vatican courts, not by Ratzinger's office.
Prior to 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith got involved only in the exceedingly rare instances when the sex abuse occurred in the context of the confessional, since a canonical tribunal within the congregation handled cases involving abuse of the sacrament of penance. That, for example, is how the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, ended up in the congregation, and it's also why officials in the Milwaukee archdiocese directed the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy there.
One certainly can question how Ratzinger's office handled those exceptional cases, and the record seems painfully slow and ambivalent in comparison with how similar accusations would be dealt with today. Moreover, Ratzinger was a senior Vatican official from 1981 forward, and therefore he shares in the corporate failure in Rome to appreciate the magnitude of the crisis until terribly late in the game.
To suggest, however, that Ratzinger was the Vatican's "point man" on sex abuse for almost twenty-five years, and to fault him for the mishandling of every case that arose between 1981 and 2001, is misleading. Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome.
2. The 2001 letter
In some reporting and commentary, a May 2001 letter from Ratzinger to the bishops of the world, titled De delictis gravioribus, is being touted as a "smoking gun" proving that Ratzinger attempted to thwart reporting priestly sex abuse to the police or other civil authorities by ordering the bishops to keep it secret.
That letter indicates that certain grave crimes, including the sexual abuse of a minor, are to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that they are "subject to the pontifical secret." The Vatican insists, however, that this secrecy applied only to the church's internal disciplinary procedures, and was not intended to prevent anyone from also reporting these cases to the police or other civil authorities. Technically they're correct, since nowhere in the 2001 letter is there any prohibition on reporting sex abuse to police or civil prosecutors.
In reality, few bishops needed a legal edict from Rome ordering them not to talk publicly about sexual abuse. That was simply the culture of the church at the time, which makes the hunt for a "smoking gun" something of a red herring right out of the gate. Fixing a culture -- one in which the Vatican, to be sure, was as complicit as anyone else, but one which was widespread and deeply rooted well beyond Rome -- is never as simple as abrogating one law and issuing another.
That aside, here's the key point about Ratzinger's 2001 letter: Far from being seen as part of the problem, at the time it was widely hailed as a watershed moment towards a solution. It marked recognition in Rome, really for the first time, of how serious the problem of sex abuse really is, and it committed the Vatican to getting directly involved. Prior to that 2001 motu proprio and Ratzinger's letter, it wasn't clear that anyone in Rome acknowledged responsibility for managing the crisis; from that moment forward, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would play the lead role.
Beginning in 2001, Ratzinger was forced to review all the files on every priest credibly accused of sexual abuse anywhere in the world, giving him a sense of the contours of the problem that virtually no one else in the Catholic church can claim. In a recent article, I outlined the "conversion experience" Ratzinger and his staff went through after 2001. Beforehand, he came off as just another Roman cardinal in denial; after his experience of reviewing the files, he began to talk openly about the "filth" in the church, and his staff became far more energetic about prosecuting abusers.
For those who have followed the church's response to the crisis, Ratzinger's 2001 letter is therefore seen as a long overdue assumption of responsibility by the Vatican, and the beginning of a far more aggressive response. Whether that response is sufficient is, of course, a matter for fair debate, but to construe Ratzinger's 2001 letter as no more than the last gasp of old attempts at denial and cover-up misreads the record.
3. Canonical Trials
Ratzinger's top deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on sex abuse cases, Maltese Monsignor Charles Scicluna, recently gave an interview to an Italian Catholic paper in which he said that of the more than 3,000 cases eventually referred to Rome, only 20 percent were subjected to a full canonical trial. In some reporting, including the Thursday piece in The New York Times, this figure has been cited as evidence of Vatican "inaction."
Once again, however, those who have followed the story closely have almost exactly the opposite impression.
Back in June 2002, when the American bishops first proposed a set of new canonical norms to Rome, the heart of which was the "one strike and you're out" policy, they initially wanted to avoid canonical trials altogether. Instead, they wanted to rely on a bishop's administrative power to permanently remove a priest from ministry. That's because their experience of Roman tribunals over the years was that they were often slow, cumbersome, and the outcome was rarely certain.
Most famously, bishops and experts would point to the case of Fr. Anthony Cipolla in Pittsburgh, during the time that Donald Wuerl, now the Archbishop of Washington, was the local bishop. Wuerl had removed Cipolla from ministry in 1988 following allegations of sexual abuse. Cipolla appealed to Rome, where the Apostolic Signatura, in effect the Vatican's supreme court, ordered him reinstated. Wuerl then took the case to Rome himself, and eventually prevailed. The experience left many American bishops, however, with the impression that lengthy canonical trials were not the way to handle these cases.
When the new American norms reached Rome, they ran into opposition precisely on the grounds that everyone deserves their day in court -- another instance, in the eyes of critics, of the Vatican being more concerned about the rights of abuser priests than victims. A special commission of American bishops and senior Vatican officials brokered a compromise, in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would sort through the cases one-by-one and decide which ones would be sent back for full trials.
The fear at the time was that the congregation would insist on trials in almost every case, thereby dragging out the administration of justice, and closure for the victims, almost indefinitely. In the end, however, only 20 percent were sent back for trials, while for the bulk of the cases, 60 percent, bishops were authorized to take immediate administrative action, because the proof was held to be overwhelming.
The fact that only 20 percent of the cases were subjected to full canonical trial has been hailed as a belated grasp in Rome of the need for swift and sure justice, and a victory for the more aggressive American approach to the crisis. It should be noted, too, that bypassing trials has been roundly criticized by some canon lawyers and Vatican officials as a betrayal of the due process safeguards in church law.
Hence to describe that 20 percent figure as a sign of "inaction" cannot help but seem, to anyone who's been paying attention, rather ironic. In truth, handling 60 percent of the cases through the stroke of a bishop's pen has, up to now, more often been cited as evidence of exaggerated and draconian action by Ratzinger and his deputies.
Obviously, none of this is to suggest that Benedict's handling of the crisis -- in Munich, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as pope -- is somehow exemplary. An accounting needs to be offered if this pope, and the church he leads, hopes to move forward. For that analysis to be constructive, however, as opposed to fueling polarization and confusion, it's important to keep the record straight.
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
This awful scandal still
This awful scandal still points to the very top...if popes didn't know about this, it was their responsibility to know it...the buck stops there.
Most of the previous comments
Most of the previous comments ignore the fact that sexual abuse of a minor is a CRIME, and should first have been referred to the civil authorities for investigation and trial. If the accused had been found guilty by the civil authorities, the church could then have removed the offender from office much more easily than by having its own inadequate investigations etc.
It's this failure of process and administration that is a major cause of this terrible crisis.
You (Anonymous) make the
You (Anonymous) make the mistake here of assuming that everyone tells the truth when reporting that a priest is abusing a kid. There are many people that hate the church and want to see priests suffer even if innocent. I, as a pediatrics nurse know that kids make up many wild things, especially if it gets them attention and more so when they hear about these rare abuse acts on tv. Their little minds start to concoct ideas, not entirely their fault. Also the Catholic Church is always targeted because it is large and one name. But last time I checked the abuse rate by Pastors of other churches was around 2%. Same as Priests. We need to pray for our Ministers that Satan cannot get a foothold. Thank you for the article, there still is true journalism out there, your just becoming more rare.
According to the John Jay
According to the John Jay report, 4% of Catholic priests were determined to have abused children or had credible accusations against them, not 2%. Given the fact that most abusers are never discovered and that most victims never report the crimes or come forward, that is still an underestimate of the reality.
You are deluded, Matt. We
You are deluded, Matt. We are thankful that you are not in the position of having to deal with abuse investigations. Your information is severely lacking, your grasp of the issues is exceptionally limited, and your penchant for blaming vistims and misusing your power over children is an exact blueprint for fostering the same atmosphere that has helped create and maintain the systemic abuse of so many (children, adolescents and adults).
Amen!!!
Amen!!!
Sometimes we forget who we
Sometimes we forget who we are as Chruch. We forget that we must try first to be followers of Jesus Christ. As we read the Gospels we are reminded again and again of the three messages of Jesus.
Faith - in God and his child sent/come to redeem us.
Hope - in the mercy of God so that we might attain eternal life
Love - we are to love one another, even our enemy; even the sinner, even ourselves.
So, what should our first reaction be when we find a sinner in our midst?
It is especially in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, that we see this played out so plainly; and we see the problem of the Church when faced with evil. When I go to confession, no matter how heinous my crime - child abuse or abortion, fratricide or euthanasia, homicide or genocide - the confessor's role is to do just as Jesus did. “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more” (John 8:11); even when faced with overwhelming belief that the sinner before him may very well sin again. It’s easy to that our Church’s persona (as Christ) is not to report our sins to the state.
We must report civil crime of all types ... except perhaps when faced with a law that in itself may be imperfect or that someone's violation of it does not appear to be sinful.
We also need to be careful not to judge yesterday’s actions by today’s norms. We certainly should plan today's and tomorrow's responses with today's norms.
The truth is the truth, part
The truth is the truth, part of our 10 commandment. Yes, confession is ther for who ever wants it. but that is not the laws job, or the church's job. its a self imposed desire. Harming children abusively is not in our Lords plan, if you know your history, Jesus was very upset when they tried to prevent the children from coming near him. Imagine the bleeding in his heart when he heard the cries of the abused child. Yesterdays actions are still and always will be todays sin and crime. When the abuser stands before the Lord, he will have to explain himself or herself, but so we each of us who allow sin and crime to go unpunished.
Which begs the question how
Which begs the question how is it that "Father" Murphy could molest about 200 boys & not one of them does an end round the Church & reports it too the police? Which is hard to believe btw. Of course I think it likely some of these boys did report it too the police which further begs the question as to why didn't the District Attorney bring charges against him? Which then leads me to ask why is everyone dog piling on the Pope for allegedly doing nothing yet the civil authorities are given a pass? I'm just saying.......
True, it is a crime but we
True, it is a crime but we are forgetting two other groups that did nothing. I know many retired Police Officers and Detectives who are worried what is going to happen to them when word gets out that they did nothing. Many times, they ignored it as they did not want to arrest or investigate a priest, rabbi, or pastor. I also know many psychologists who knew that pedophilia could not be cured back in the 70s and 80s and did not speak up. Easy to place the blame on the church but there are many others who are also responsible.
I guess you aren't a parent.
I guess you aren't a parent.
Not necessarily. Read
Not necessarily. Read Allen's wonderful book ALL THE POPE'S MEN to get a sense of how the Vatican works. It is not like a Western President's office with a rapid response team, etc. The pope has authority over all aspects of the church, from Central Rome to throghout the world and many aspects of day to day occurances, do not come across his desk.
I believe this blog article by John L. Allen serves to clear up many misundestandings out there...including yours...that the Holy Father recently swept abuse under the rug. It is simply not true.
Actually it's Jesus, not the
Actually it's Jesus, not the Pope who's at the very top.
It is more than well
It is more than well understood that we are here talking about the rock, on which the Church rests,Peter, today BXVI. If that makes Jesus less that He is, then we should blaming Him for "reducing Himself His power". Of course this is absurd...just as your replay.
Absolutely correct. The pope
Absolutely correct. The pope is only there by being voted in by a bunch of self-righteous pontificating pseudo-academics. The sad thing about the catholic church is that it purports to know "best" about how the world should live but has shown itself to be desparately lacking in being a Godly role model. How many other Christian faiths have had clergy sexually abusing innocent chldren of God, only to have "management" ducking for cover with all manner of excuses?
There are some very, very sick people in the catholic church. Proud to be a catholic - no way. There is no way I want to be 'blessed' by a catholic priest who represents such a sick church. I am not a catholic and am VERY PROUD NOT TO BE A CATHOLIC!!
As in the history of our
As in the history of our Popes, we notice that not all of them did a "full term." Some were removed for various reasons. The same goes with our Holy Father. We all know that he is not above the law.
However, having said the above does not change the fact that we are the one 'True' Church that Christ and his Apostles established. The Truth will prevail somehow. We may not be the "Perfect" Church, but beyond a doubt we're the one "True" Church.
I am personally guilty and take partial accountability for all this mess since I have not prayed enough for my priests and yet in the past I have pointed a finger from 'Home to Rome.' Wake up laity! Do your bit. The least - Pray for our Shepherds whose jobs are perhaps the loneliest and toughest.
Dear All, I think we have to
Dear All,
I think we have to remember is that Christ is fully human and fully divine. And as the Chruch is the body of Christ, it ALSO is fully human and fully divine. The human part of it is pocked with sin and corruption, just as we are. And we have to accept it as such, and forgive it, and understand that it's not perfect and never can be. It makes mistakes, sometimes horrible mistakes.
But the Church is also fully divine. Our Holy Father holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The same keys that Christ, Himself, gave to Peter. We must never forget that the Church's sole responsibility is to serve as a conduit of God's graces. To lead us in the worship of God, the most important thing in our lives. And the divine part of the Church functions flawlessly.
Dear All, I think we have to
Dear All,
I think we have to remember is that Christ is fully human and fully divine. And as the Chruch is the body of Christ, it ALSO is fully human and fully divine. The human part of it is pocked with sin and corruption, just as we are. And we have to accept it as such, and forgive it, and understand that it's not perfect and never can be. It makes mistakes, sometimes horrible mistakes.
But the Church is also fully divine. Our Holy Father holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The same keys that Christ, Himself, gave to Peter. We must never forget that the Church's sole responsibility is to serve as a conduit of God's graces. To lead us in the worship of God, the most important thing in our lives. And the divine part of the Church functions flawlessly.
Thanks for your thought for
Thanks for your thought for it opened the subject for wider discussion. I hope you've read the comments from all the Catholic people who responded to you. They gave wise, nice responses. I on the other hand, agree with the apologetics view in favor of the Holy Father the Pope and the Catholic church. Viva Cristo Rey! Viva Cristo Rey! Viva Cristo Rey!
Dear Mr. Allen: As a
Dear Mr. Allen:
As a tradition-leaning Catholic, I tend to light up in anger when I read articles such as those in the NYT and other news outlets during the past days.
Then, trying to look for some comfort in the right-leaning Catholic blogosphere, that usually calls everything an "attack without merit" I continue to ask myself: Is this all there is?
Your balanced writing serves the Truth, and I hope you are aware of the immense service you provide to your readers. Thank you once again.
God bless you.
Thank you John. You seem to
Thank you John. You seem to be the only voice of reason and clarity in this challenging time. Keep putting the truth out there. Hopefully your voice will be heard through CNN and others. The news is causing such grave scandal and anger - young people who do not know the whole story are outraged. Of course, the pattern of the global media every Easter is to release as much negative news as they possibly can to subvert the beauty of the Church at this holiday.
God bless you for your thorough investigating and objective reporting.
Very good article. But you
Very good article. But you have to keep wondering when the press, including the NCR, will go after God for having created the Archangel Lucifer, knowing in advance what Lucifer would do.Then He, I mean, God had the audacity to create Adam and Eve, whose happy fault, whose necessary sin brought forth a Savior. But the press certainly can go after Jesus Christ too for dying for likes of Adolf Hitler, all the pedophiles in the world and all those enabling bishops. Certainly Jesus knew those for whom He was dying to redeem them, to forgive them, to forget their sins and injustices, to hide them, sweep them under the carpet! Just what did Jesus know and when did He know it? At the beginning of His public ministry? At the Transfiguration? At the Passion. On the Cross. Certainly He knew the pardon He gave to the most grievous of sinners and perverts at the resurrection! This calls into questions all of God's salvation history. Thank God, I mean the press, we have a national and international press both religious and secular that can uncover the cover-ups of God! All that blood Jesus shed, it was a ploy to cover up all the sin and evil of the world. Deplorable! When will reporters in the secular and religious press open up their perfect Church and their perfect lives. Can't wait to join them and honor them for their secular and religious perfection. Oh, do they get a pass for the 50 million unborn children slaughtered in the last 50 years? Shall they name any names who are complicit in that, especially those who provide late term abortions and partial birth abortions up to 9 months? Oh, I guess that's not classified as child abuse? We'll give them a pass and pat them on their back for forward thinking in that area.
All I wanted to say, is
All I wanted to say, is excellent post!
Sounds like you need Jesus
Sounds like you need Jesus too!
We ALL need Jesus!
We ALL need Jesus!
Thank you, John, for your
Thank you, John, for your clear and very civil explanation of these matters.
From all the hyperbole [my polite word for the current hysteria. . in the media and in readers' comments on NCR] this article helps immensely for all of us -- or those of who want to be -- to be on the same page when we place foot-in-mouth.
Witness the current hysteria among people reported in the various media, re; the new health care LAW [ it is no longer a Bill, btw] Ignorance or malice work havoc on right thinking and acting. I would hope that those of us who call ourselves Gospel people could really strive "to speak the truth with love" , not sentimentality or violence. Wouldn't it be a wonderful witness if it could be said today "Look at these Christians! How they love one another!"
Sadly, it seems that in losing the grace of civility we've thrown out the practice of the virtues [strong action] of faith, hope and charity.
This is yet another example
This is yet another example of how you help us to understand and to obtain perspective.
Thank you.
John, I hope that you were
John, I hope that you were just trying to state the facts clearly. I am a very long-lived lifelong Catholic who has been following this crisis from Day One in the USA. I must honestly report that it seems to me that you have been nipping at the Vatican Kool Aid again! As I read your report, I kept visualizing the little kids running up to Jesus and his disciples [supposedly priests of today] telling them to get back. Jesus clearly and firmly rebuked the disciples for that behavior. Today, we have the priests [not all] abusing, raping and sodomizing the little kids and the Pontiff [supposedly Christ on earth] by his words [documents] and actions [long and drawn-out] saying, "Well, let's study this. Better not do anything too rapidly until we investigate for a year or so; we don't want to ruin our reputation."
John, I don't care how you try to slice it: it STINKS! These are little kids we are talking about here: GET them away from the suspected abusers; do your fancy canon law footwork after the kids are safe! I must say that I am surprised that someone with your knowledge could write what you did. Again, I think you've been drinking from that Vatican Kool Aid too long.
Dear John, Is it possible
Dear John,
Is it possible that you could have taken a bad sample of Kool Aid at the Vatican? Perhaps there is another authority that verifies your reporting with a different style,additioanl details, and not as long that TAQ could accept. If I may suggest some help for him and other don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts know it alls:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=629
Thereafter, if he persists, TAQ could tell us when he stopped smoking cigarettes and when he is going to begin drinking Vatican Kool Aid instead.
Carmelo and Anonymous
Carmelo and Anonymous [below],
"Drinking the Kool Aid" is a euphemism for believing what the authorities tell you and not thinking for yourself. John Allen has an invested interest as an "insider" at the Vatican. His sources would "clam up" if he wrote a true but negative report.
This isn't about John Allen and his journalistic credentials, it's about the young people who were molested by people who were supposed to be acting as representatives of Jesus Christ. The little kids were the ones who were traumatized physically and spiritually. The physicians now will try to heal their minds and bodies; Jesus will heal their spirits and souls. We, the People of God, need to make certain that it never happens again. Anyone living in the human world and working in an organized institution, be it a business or social enterprise, knows that the directives come from "on top" down to the subordinates. Underlings do not just come up with performance objectives on their own initiative-----they follow policy if they want to continue to have a job or be promoted. Anyone living as a human being with the merest sense of compassion knows that it is WRONG to molest children. It would take such a person less than a minute to pick up the phone and call the police after discovering such an atrocity. You don't need to think about the abuser's status in society, how wealthy he is, how much power he has, who might be embarrassed, who might "get back" at you; you just do the RIGHT thing. So, please, don't try to come up with different scenarios to explain why various individuals in the chain of command didn't act like compassionate human beings and why the boss didn't fire them when he found out they covered things up. I suggest that we get rid of this riffraff like Jesus did with the money-changers in the temple, let the People of God choose new leaders, and everyone focus on helping the kids who were hurt by these criminals. Jesus emphasis was ALWAYS on the kids and ALWAYS opposed to the hierarchs who were centered on legalities. Especially during this season of Lent, let's take care of the "little ones" and remove the toxic hierarchs to show the kids that we are serious and to prevent future disease in what is supposed to be the Body of Christ.
The point of this article is
The point of this article is not to diminish the atrocity of the many abusive acts performed by various priests within the Church, it is simply to set the record straight concerning Pope Benedict's role in handling the crisis. Don't be scandalized by the fact that this text didn't seek to acknowledge the pain factor. Mr. Allen was, as you seem unsure about, just trying to state the facts clearly. see paragraph three of the article.
You write as if these awful
You write as if these awful scandals are something which have recently occurred. In reality, the vast majority of these things happened 30,40 and 50 years ago. The vast majority of clerical abusers are either dead, defrocked or freely left the priesthood years ago. You write as if the ranks of the present clergy are filled with abusers. This is a terrible mistake and a disservice to an already demoralized group of dedicated men. I think that you have been drinking the Kool Aid of the secular media.
Good job, John. You've helped
Good job, John.
You've helped set me straight.
It's tough to keep track of what's coming out.
I've been convinced that Paul IV, John Paul II and Benedict were all involved in a policy that seemed to be coordinating cover-up around the world.
I'll withhold judgement based on this analysis.
Thank you.
Thank you for the
Thank you for the clarification and update on this crisis. I appreciate the enormity of the responsibility our Holy Father Benedict assumed when he accepted his election to the papacy. However, if the credibility of our church's hierarchy is to be salvaged and restored, he must make transparent the action or inaction he and his brother bishops have taken since this crisis started to unfold more than fifty years ago.
Those who minimize the enormity of this scandalous communal sin must stop and admit their guilt. If the innocence of only one child of God was aborted by an ordained minister and then silenced by a consecrated minister, that calls for repentance from our entire family, since Paul pointed out that when "one member sufers, all the members suffer". Unfortunately, it was not only one image of God whose innocence was aborted, it was hundreds if not thousands.
Jesus severely condemned this sin. Civil authorities condemn this crime. Faithful Christians are not only appalled by this sinful crime, they are wounded and confused by the questionalbe papal and episcopal actions and silence.
Let us pray that the Holy Spirit make his presence felt in the hearts and minds and souls of all the baptized members of the Mystical Body of Christ so that we may beg forgiveness and sincerely commit ourselves to healing and reconcilliation.
And perhaps our Holy Father should consider resigning as a sign that he is willing to completely share in the pain and suffering his flock has endured and the wounds and scars that will our church will carry forever.
Father, forgive us for what we knowingly did.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.
John Allen knows very well
John Allen knows very well that Vaticanize is a language that is quite peculiar in the world. The May 2001 letter of the Cardinal Inquisitor to the bishops of the world, titled "De delictis gravioribus" did not explicitly forbid bishops referring cases of criminal sexual abuse and physical abuse of children to the civil authorities and the local police. However, those who have spent any time reading Vatican documents, including encyclicals and formal documents, know that it is necessary to read between the lines and to see what is explicitly not said but intended. Bishops around the world did not make a mistake in interpreting this document as demanding "secrecy" and "protection of the institution" as top priorities. Of course the CDF is not going to spell out its true intentions in a document that would eventually go public. The meaning of the document is understood in the way bishops around the world interpreted the document. They were not told along the road that perhaps they had misinterpreted the intentions of the CDF as expressed by the future B16.
I find it impossible to
I find it impossible to attribute this comment to anything but sheer prejudice. 'Everybody knows' is about the same as 'no doubt' - i.e. no evidence.
And I am astounded by the presumption of the pope's detractors that secular justice is so superior. In the period in which these old offences occurred, secular justice often didn't want to knowt all, or let offenders off with a fine.
For my part, I suspect one of the reasons for the hysterical attempts to depict child abuse as only a clerical problem is that the business ansd professional classes who used to think they were untouchable don't want the spotlight turned on them.
Phil Little, show us your
Phil Little, show us your credentials! If you expect people to take seriously your assertion that you are well-versed in 'Vaticanize', explain how you came to be so. It seems to me that all you are doing is ignoring what is being said by the Vatican and replacing it with what you think they really mean. Why should anyone be confident in your interpretation while ignoring the plainly written? When you read 'between the lines', you may be seeing what you have placed there.
Thanks, Mr. Allen for the
Thanks, Mr. Allen for the effort to bring light vs heat.
It is interesting that the tendency instantly to polarize and demonize seems to be taking over church issues not unlike the rest of our politics: hence an inclination to think the worst of Ratzinger from the get go, and to discount or twist any of his (maybe-sensible-for-the-times) efforts.
But it is also terribly true that the hierarchy from bishops to Rome continue to do an inadequate job at getting an effective handle on the problem, let alone the "public relations" (or more precisely "relations with the faithful") of the problem.
RRPalmer
Thank you for your
Thank you for your explination
It certainly seems that the
It certainly seems that the Church has some explaining to do concerning both Benedict's record and the Vatican's in general. I read the NY Times article and it did say that Ratzinger was in charge of the abuse problem from 1981 on. This kind of misstatement in print is both misleading and unnecessarily harmful. Thanks, John, for setting things straight. Ed Fleming
That is a fundamental error
That is a fundamental error made by the NYT and it upsets me.
Mr. Allen is one of the best reporters in the world. His work needs greater distribution in the general media markets.
Then please read the article
Then please read the article once again if you think it said that. The article correctly states: "But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger."
Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the CDF from 1981 to 2005. It's a matter of public record, not opinion. The office was, and continues to be the central authority regarding handling of abuse cases. Cardinal Ratzinger was personally required to be directly involved only in cases involving abuse of the confessional until 2001, at which time the policy changed to require him to be informed on all abuse cases. The case that the NYT is writing about, F. Murphy of Milwaukee, did involve abuse of the confessional, and Cardinal Ratzinger was personally notified on multiple occasions - the documents and letters addressed to him personally are also public record now - you can read them here: http://bit.ly/c1HwMI
So, splitting hairs about the period between 1981 and 2001 not requiring Cardinal Ratzinger's involvement, and saying that the NYT article is misleading on that point just doesn't ring true. He was involved, directly, as required, and did not act, for the two cases the NYT is covering. That's the point.
John, I am trying to
John,
I am trying to understand your math. If 20% were subject to full canonical trials and 60% were handled by bishops directly, what about the other 20%? And do you have any statistics on the outcome of those canonical trials?
John left out one very
John left out one very important number, and that is the number of credibly accused priests who were never brought to Vatican notice or sanctioned by their bishop. I suspect that number is quite a bit higher than the 3000 the Vatican investigated since 2001.
Thank you John for once again
Thank you John for once again bringing fairness and clarity to a complex and very sensitive issue! Very helpful. Linked it to my facebook to help spread the word.
John Allen's claim that " . .
John Allen's claim that " . . . the first casualty of any crisis is perspective." is certainly true. And it is also true for John Allen. And the perspective John Allen seems to lack is his nearly total inability to see this crisis from the outside, from the point of view what this all looks like to the world. His near total immersion as a Vatican insider doesn't let him see that this crisis is moving to the question of the everyday workings of the Vatican and the church as a whole. Probably most of what he writes is pretty accurate and he's to be thanked for the accurate "footnotes" as he calls them. But the "text" that these "footnotes" refer to is the text of secrecy. This escapes him as it has escaped the Vatican sources he depends on. This is the crisis of clerical secrecy from top to bottom.
FAIR & BALANCED REPORT: John
FAIR & BALANCED REPORT: John Allen's report of the Pope's handling of sex abuse cases was fair and balanced. John Allen is nothing if not fiercely fair in his reporting and analysis He is known throughout the world as probably the most knowledgeable and objective reporter on things Vatican. I have full confidence in the integrity of this Pope. He is a gift to the Church and society at large, a giant in a world of pygmies.
Thanks for shedding needed
Thanks for shedding needed light on an area that is subject to too much anger, preconception, and willingness to blame.
The points you make are well
The points you make are well taken. So the problem is one of governance. Authority and responsibility in the Church are highly centralized to the point that justice is short changed and charity abused. Most of us working within the Church has also known that for a long time. Finally, centralized governance has created an international crisis in the credibility of the Church.
Huh?!? I didn't get that
Huh?!? I didn't get that impression at all, from reading the article. If anything, the Vatican was not involved enough up until 2001. Although the Vatican certainly didn't help matters prior to that, the problem was primarily in local dioceses.
Actually, I would have the
Actually, I would have the opposite interpretation. In Ireland especially, the problem seemed to be that the local Church (bishops), didn't report everything they should have reported to the Holy See. Of course, centralization does institute beauracracy, which can slow down the process, but it also makes the local Church more accountable to a larger authority.
Gutsy! Down to the point. I
Gutsy! Down to the point. I love the church and specially now when total trasparency is absolutely needed. NCR good job!
I don't know, John. You make
I don't know, John. You make some good points but you're reaching for it. First, I would ask why the priests who frothed at the mouth during Sunday homilies against married couples having sex with a condom, couldn't see the far graver sin of raping children. They understood the latter, but not the former. As the Irish bishop said: "(the priests) were weak men seeking a bit of comfort from the children."
Second, Cardinal R. was responsible for that infamous 2001 letter which I have now read "spun" several different ways. One was that he was trying to protect the victims. I guess he tried to do this by keeping the whole crime event secret? Then I heard that there weren't enough copies printed and not everybody saw it. I distinctly remember we had photo copiers in 2001. And, of course, the bishops never discussed it with each other? We're supposed to rejoice because the Vatican started to respond in 2001? Where were they in the decades before that? The church never moved until the media, civil authority, and the laity forced them to move.
Third, relying on the bishops to take action against a pedophile priest, vs. any kind of a trial, is naive at best. The bishops don't take action. They may shuffle them off for a little counseling, but they cover it all up, keep them on, and empower them in new areas. Why would we trust the bishop to handle the situation properly? They never have before!
I think our poor, scandal plagued church, may have to be reformed with new leadership, rules, and more openness before it can recover from what the bishops have done to it in their arrogance, ignorance, and priority setting of protecting the church (and themselves) from criticism at any cost.
Brother Ed; did you ever
Brother Ed; did you ever personally witness a priest frothing at the mouth over artificial contraception? In what year and parish? I've been Catholic for 49 years and have heard a homily that touched on condom use in a negative fashion exactly twice.
On your second point, why not jusr read the letter instead of complaining about "spin".
What is your point, Monk?
What is your point, Monk? Are you offended by the word "condom"? Throughout the 50s and 60s, the words "artificial contraception" were used all the time from the pulpit. And, always with "frothing of the mouth".
But, that was not the worst thing. Women would go into confession, and after they had finished confessing their sins, the priest would ask whether or not they were married, how many kids they had, and if they were using "anything". If the answer was yes (usually with some sputtered reason)and if the woman would not promise to STOP, she was DENIED ABSOLUTION. (Some priests were even opposed to "rhythm".) Some women shopped around until they found a priest who would "forgive/understand their sin". Most, though, simply stopped going to church.
I meet them still on their death beds.
Shame on anyone who justifies the attitude of the church about MARITAL sex. Too many men/power-holders in the church still don't see what the true "sex" crimes are.
For the good of the church
For the good of the church and to enable it to regain the credibility and trust of its own people Joseph Ratzinger needs to 1) defrock all pedophile priests whose case have been referred to Rome 2) Force into resignation all - yes ALL bishops and cardinals (Yes Law, Mahoney, George etc) who have ever covered up the crimes of pedophile priests and send them to houses of prayer, monasteries or the like for the rest of their days and 3)resign the papacy and call for a new conclave ASAP. Anything short of completing these three moves lets the bleeding continue, and the credibility of our RCC leadership continue to erode. Our leaders in Rome and North America are no longer able to take a moral stand on problems that is credible, two centures of hard work in the USA by brothers. sisters. priests and bishops for the RCC has been squandered on "image". The bishops have thrown away their integrity as Christians. WE could really do with a century or so of lay leadership, just keep the bishops around for sacrament jockeys as needed. We need to purge our canon law of all legislation that creates a privelieged state for ordained priests, bishops and especially Cardinals. The old "pyramid" written into the code of canona law has been turned upside down and the tiny top has been found to be rotten. We do not need a top down, centralized system anymore. It has failed and it is not necessary for us to have a Cathoic Church.
Had it with them in Louisville!
Earth calling Brother Ed.
Earth calling Brother Ed. Brother Ed must belong to a religious order from Mars. To the best of my recollection I and my wife have not missed a Sunday Mass since the promulgation of Humanae Vitae in 1968 and I have yet to hear a defense of the encylical from the pulpit. I have heard many dissident Catholics like Brother Ed rail against the encylical usually evincing their ignorance of the contents of the encyclical, like the part where the Pope posits that the use of contraceptives will result in women being treated as objects. Brother Ed, have you checked on the divorce rate lately?
Regarding point two, the
Regarding point two, the phrase from the May 18, 2001 document, "Haec tantum, quae supra idicantur delicta cum sua definitione, Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei Tribunali Apostolico RESERVANTUR" would indicate that nobody else should be involved even though civil authorities are not excluded by name.
Certain bitter and dissident
Certain bitter and dissident voices here wish against reality to blame the Second Vatican Council for our shortage of priests.
Read this article and you do the math.
Had we implemented the Second Vatican Council fully we would now have a worker priest in every industrial worksite administering to the pastoral needs of their factory co-workers, with Mass on site during the coffee break.
With the bishop the servant of all, the custodian.
Instead we have nothing.
As we say in Mexico: Peor es nada.
What are you talking about??
What are you talking about??
Thank you for the facts. We
Thank you for the facts. We appreciate keeping "the record straight."
Thanks, John, for keeping the
Thanks, John, for keeping the record straight. Public opinion is rightly shocked by pedophile behavior among a number of priests (in a number of cases as a result of a pathological condition). Requesting that others (from whatever group or conviction) should also look closely at their own condition will not heal our own wounds, but it could protect many other young people from disastrous experiences.
Jean-Pierre Chevrolet
CH 3968 Veyras
". . . in the exceedingly
". . . in the exceedingly rare instances when the sex abuse occurred in the context of the confessional, . . . "
-----------------
I don't think such instances were "exceedingly rare". I think they were exceedingly common, if anything, and have been from the start.
Looking at Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes, by Doyle, Sipe, and Wall: Search term: "confessional".
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Priests-Secret-Codes-Catholic/dp/1566252652/re...
From that:
". . . direct reference was made to it in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 904)--the church's first official codification of laws--and the entire text is included as an appendix."
(The Benedict referred to was XV, of course, not the current Pope.)
"Little more could be added to the detail and force of Pope Benedict's decree. Yet the problem continued. A major impediment to prosecuting sexually abusive confessors was the reluctance of victims to come forward and press charges. Pope Gregory's and Pope Benedict's decrees contain statements urging solicited penitents to turn in their perpetrators. Since this obviously was not successful, the church authorities turned to more stringent measures. It introduced legislation imposing seven punishments, including excommunication, on people who failed to denounce priests who had solicited them in the confessional." (Canon 2368.2 in the 1917 Code.)
NCR's extensive coverage of the abuse has included many stories in which confessionals were the settings. One of many examples:
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/042806/042806a.php
In any organization, there
In any organization, there are accusations against authority that are neither factual nor credible. By this, I mean that sometimes people, particularly young people lie and some of the lies are so egregious that they do not pass the "smell" test. The Church and subsidiary organizations are no exception. However, even these outrageous lies can permanently damage the reputation and career of a priest. To be sure there are bad priest. Nevertheless, there are also wrongly accused priests.
A wrongly accused priest could easily suffer permanent damage to his reputation and the destruction of his, possibly long, long career of faithful service. Any process to deal with accusations must take into account a) any real damage done to an innocent person and b) the potential harm, probably permanent, to the accused (priest). This is a tough balancing act.
Some accusations are so transparently false that they do not deserve public discussion. If there is a credible accusation, both civil and Church investigations are needed. That's the way it is in the U.S. today. Unfortunately, it was not always thus.
But to think that we could go back 30, 40 or even 50 years and re-investigate and judge allegations of that time by today's standards, both of evidence and communications, is gravely wrong. One must inspect the motives of those that judge in that way. We must be aware of those motives as to whether they are pure, financial or driven by a political desire to denigrate the influence of the Church.
This response has been posted on the blog site of the Catholic Defense League, cdlmn.org/CDL
Pat You make some very good
Pat
You make some very good points. At a time when common sence is in short supply your post is very welcome.
Mr. Allen, the question that
Mr. Allen, the question that I don't see answered is how dare they keep these issues inside their own circle. Whey were the police never brought in? Crimes were committed, sending someone for psych counseling or even defrocking is OK but shouldn't the police have called? And in not doing so weren't further crimes committed?
I understand the argument
I understand the argument that the police should always be called in when dealing with cases of sexual abuse, but the underlying assumption is that the civil authorities do not have their own agenda at odds with that of the Church. In the US that might be the case, but Vatican officials might tend to look at things from a global perspective. I've been reading James Brockman's biography of Archbishop Romero, which describes a government bent on destroying a bishop who was an outspoken critic of injustice. Before he was assassinated, he was the object of outrageous accusations (including the claim that her personally directed a terrorist group). Imagine how much easier it would be for such a government to eliminate him now -- a few planted accusations of childhood sexual abuse and -- voilà -- the pesky bishop is completely discredited.
What a minute, John Allen,
What a minute, John Allen, you are giving some information on the structural way the church is set up without giving information on the others ways the church is set up. You paint it as a bureaucracy that does not know what the left or right hand is doing. However, important among the ways the church operates is how the papal nuncio functions in each country. The nuncio gathers information for the Vatican whenever a local controversy erupts in the church or a local bishop protects himself by advising the nunico of some problem. The nuncio's letters to the local bishop wanting full details is a frequent occurrence. It is most difficult to think that this intelligence gathering does not reach the very top at the Vatican. The Vatican has tried to manage the abuse crisis as a local event. But as it engulfs the whole of the whole of the church, there is no escaping full culpability any more. The secrecy, the authoritarian ways, and the protective cult of the priesthood are the rotten core of the institution.
While transparency is surely
While transparency is surely called for and in the end, I predict will actually help the pope, I wish that I could be as fair minded as you are in your assessment of the news media regarding this story. It seems clear to me that with all of the errors and innuendo in the reporting, and the constant "drip...drip...drip"... (newly rehashed stories every day), that you correctly warned against in your previous article, that this most certainly is about "wounding the pope and/or the church". As a long time reader, I have rarely seen the NYT's do such shoddy work.
I do not see how justice for victims is served by untruthful and charges against an individual who has tried admirably to right the wrongs of our church's past. Is there another agenda here?
It is only because the NYT
It is only because the NYT and other publications the world over have not let bullying by the Catholic Church stop them from publishing details of the truly scandalous behaviour of senior church officials, including the Pope, that victims like myself have any chance of one day seeing justice. Or more importantly finally being able to heal.
From the point of view of the victims this issue is not about righting past wrongs but about righting wrongs that continue today and will continuing well into the future if the current Pope is left to his own devices.
I don't care if anyone has another agenda - in my eyes and those of people with a functioning brain "wounding the pope and/or the Church" is a long way down on the scale of evil from sexually abusing hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children the world over, knowing about it, enabling it to continue, and re-abusing victims with a callous cover-up.
And that is actually the core of this issue. Because many Catholics believe telling the painful, horrible, embarrassing, criminal truth is a far, far worse crime than the rape and torture of children.
I know from personal experience. An entire Catholic community considers me to be public enemy NO 1 because I spoke up about my abuse. They prefer that the Brother who destroyed the lives of dozens of young girls, a criminal sexual predator, should continue to be protected - whatever the additional cost to his already devastated victims.
Post new comment