The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionCardinal's lawyer gives context to leaked tapes
Sep. 01, 2010
About Cardinal Danneels' failed attempt at reconciliation within the Vangheluwe family
Cardinal Godfried Danneels (CNS 2007 file photo)
Media portrayals of retired Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels' meeting with a sex abuse victim, the victim's family and the abuser, Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Brugge, Belgium, have not given a complete picture of what transpired, says the lawyer representing Cardinal Danneels.
To counter the misrepresentations in the media, Fernand Keuleneer, Danneels' attorney, issued the following statement Aug. 30:
On Saturday August 28, the Belgian newspaper De Standaard committed a character assassination on Cardinal Godfried Danneels (77), the retired archbishop of Mechelen – Brussels. De Standaard published (a part only of) the transcript of the tapes which had been secretly recorded during a confidential, improvised and failed reconciliation attempt with the Vangheluwe family, which the Cardinal acquiesced to undertake on April 8, 2010, De Standaard put certain paragraphs in red and moreover added extremely biased commentary.
Almost everyone agrees that legally, the Cardinal did nothing wrong. We moreover consider the Cardinal has acted in a morally irreproachable way.
In the beginning of April 2010, Cardinal Danneels receives a telephone call from his former colleague (as a bishop, for a quarter of a century) and friend Mgr. Roger Vangheluwe, then still bishop of Bruges. At the outset of the conversation, Mgr. Vangheluwe immediately informs the Cardinal that he has committed a heinous act: as of 1973, he had been sexually abusing his own nephew. The abuse continues until 1986, when the victim's father confronts his brother. The discussion between former colleagues takes no more than a few minutes. As anybody in a similar situation would be, the Cardinal is shocked and can barely respond.
Only a few days later, on April 8, 2010, the catholic association of senior citizens "OKRA" organizes a large meeting in Bruges. The Cardinal is a guest of honour and receives – at the occasion of his own retirement – a honorary membership. Mgr. Vangheluwe is also present and approaches the Cardinal. He requests the Cardinal to attend and facilitate a meeting between himself and his family. The Cardinal is reluctant and says he prefers another date. He asks his former colleague to call his family. Mgr. Vangheluwe does so, and tells the Cardinal that his family is already on its way and that it would be good for them to have the conversation. If the Cardinal has been naïve, it is at this point, when accepting the request to mediate. But it would be a very cynical position to hold against Cardinal Danneels the fact that he opted to attempt a reconciliation in a family tragedy, and in doing so, exposed himself to potential negative press coverage, rather than choosing the easy way out by shifting the problem to the papal nuncio.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Around 03.00 p.m. the victim arrives with a number of relatives.
The Cardinal is unprepared for what follows. He assumes his role is to mediate in a family drama which took place between 1973 and 1986, which has been kept a family secret for the following twenty-four years and which has continued to fester, and for which a reconciliation and some form of repair may be possible. This is moreover what at least some of the family members wish for – and this preferably without a public scandal, which, as the Cardinal very correctly pointed out, would be in nobody's interest.
Mgr. Vangheluwe's nephew however expected that attending a meeting with "the Cardinal" in the presence of his family, would give him the opportunity to address the "employer" of his uncle: somebody in a position to dismiss his uncle as a bishop. It also becomes clear that Mgr. Vangeluwe's nephew expected Mgr. Léonard (the newly appointed archbishop of Mechelen – Brussels) to attend. This is not the case, and the Cardinal informs Mgr. Vangheluwe's nephew from in the beginning and very clearly that he has retired and has no authority whatsoever. His sole role is to mediate and advise. He does suggest to arrange a meeting with Mgr. Léonard if that is desired.
Not once during the meeting does the Cardinal exert any form of pressure on the abuse victim. At multiple instances the Cardinal asks what the victim wants to be done. The victim answers: I put it in "your" (plural) hands. The Cardinal asks the victim whether he wants the matter to be publicized. Again, the victim answers: I leave it up to "you" (plural). The Cardinal asks whether Mgr. Vangheluwe should resign. The victim replies: "but he should decide that", and that "for today", he desires Mgr. Vangheluwe to openly confess in front of the entire family.
Cardinal Danneels causes Mgr. Vangheluwe, for the first time in twenty-four years, to admit his guilt in front of his entire family, to apologize and to beg forgiveness. Whoever considers this a meaningless or unimportant event, is wrong.
At the explicit and repeated request of the victim, Cardinal Danneels suggests various alternatives, which take into account not only the victim whose life has been destroyed, but also his family who has suffered along with the victim as well as, indeed, the perpetrator who in Christian eyes remains a human being. The Cardinal proposes that Mgr. Vangheluwe would disappear as much as possible from public life during the following year, and would then immediately resign upon reaching the retirement age (often bishops stay in their position for a few more years). This would avoid the press asking questions: none of the persons involved – including the victim – are eager for a public family scandal. Once more: the abuse victim and his family had been aware of the abuse for twenty-four years and have during this period never attempted to contact either the press or the police.
It is true that the Cardinal has also proposed forgiveness as a part of a conceivable solution.
One could consider this a hopelessly naïve or an outdated pastoral remedy. This is not so. Forgiveness indeed is the Catholic and moreover correct answer towards a repenting sinner. An abuse victim who is able to forgive – after penance and repair by the offender of whatever that still can be repaired – is a happier individual in comparison to a victim who merely scored in court or who only received financial compensation. Forgiveness and reconciliation are there not only for those who receive forgiveness but also for those who grant forgiveness. The solutions proposed by the Cardinal are potentially substantially more effective than their alternatives – that is, if such alternatives existed, which is not the case since it is not the role of a mediator in a confidential discussion to inform or alert any third party and since anyhow, no legal recourse or remedies were still available, neither from a canon law nor from a civil law perspective.
The conversation turns, at many instances, into a painful family dispute. This is not reflected in De Standaard, which has not published the entirety of the conversation. Near the end, the Cardinal mentions that in his opinion, the conversation remains unfinished and that the issues should be revisited. He leaves the meeting with the understanding that all involved shall take some time for reflection, and that another meeting would follow in order to see whether the peace in the family could be restored. Such a second meeting never takes place: within days after the first meeting, Mgr. Vangheluwe by telephone informs the Cardinal he has tendered his resignation in writing to the papal nuncio.
Finally: the justification for publishing a part of the conversations which took place is apparently that the abuse victim had been accused of blackmailing the former bishop of Bruges to acquire a financial gain. Whether this accusation is correct or not, it is not the Cardinal who spread this rumour, and it remains completely unclear how destroying one reputation can repair the tarnishing of another one.
Brussels, August 30 2010
Fernand Keuleneer
Attorney of Cardinal Godfried Danneels
Related reporting from NCR:
It seems to me that the
It seems to me that the transcript is very clear (absent translation errors).
It is Keuleneer's cherry-picking of parts of it and attempting to re-spin them to mean something else that comes across as deception and intellectually dishonest.
No doubt Daneels was caught off-guard. And it is in un-guarded moments that the fundamental character of an individual, and his priorities, become most apparent.
Imagine if Danneels had instead admitted to a lapse of judgement, of going with ill-formed instincts, and that we have a great deal to learn and then went about educating himself and his brother bishops?
It's a nice try by Fernand
It's a nice try by Fernand Keuleneer defending the indefensible, defending the interests of his client, Cardinal Godfried Danneels. But the damage has been done.
Danneels, not really bad as cardinals go - had a fairly positive reputation, reveals that he is as much a prisoner, now a victim himself, of the clerical culture of silence, lies and deception as are any of his other brother bishops.
The cancer has metastasized throughout the hierarchy. It is pervasive and deep. I don't think chemotherapy or surgery is medically indicated at this point. I don't think there are any "silver bullet" remedies out there who can turn this around. We should just try to help the hierarchs retain as much of their dignity as possible during the limited time they have left.
A very intersting account. I
A very intersting account. I have finished "The Brothers Karamazov" and the compelling attorneys summaries to the jury stick in my mind -- and the story's conclusion! The "spins" in this story aer all complex and perhaps the good Cardinal was caught off-guard and tried to act charitably, but he was over his head and compromised in so many ways. What he did was wrong, perhaps not as malicious as it sounded initially, but nevertheless -- in my mind-- wrong considering the years of abuse and episcopal duplicity.
This does put it in the
This does put it in the context of passivity on the part of the cardinal. I do not care if he is retired. He as a pastor needed to take an active role in leadership. The offender needed to publicly state his guilt without naming the victim. The offender needed to clearly state his understanding of what motivated him to victimize and innocent child so as to shed more light on the dynamics of this evil act.
The passivity of the cardinal indicates his immaturity in understanding interpersonal relationships which seems to be at the core of problem with the priesthood.
It is obvious that the
It is obvious that the Belgian newspaper in question had ceded to the current attitude in vogue among newspapers in other countries. Sales count......
Issuing a statement via a
Issuing a statement via a "legal representative" is, I guess, intended to provide some credability distance from the issue. It just doesn't work. Whatever points of validity, the statement neither "absolves" the cardinal nor dismisses the victim, nor does it absolve in any way the abhorrent reality of sexual abuse by the bishop or the damage to the victim. The compounded injury to the victim, the expressed rumours of blackmail allegations do the cardinal no favour.
Worse, it uses the tenuous "contexts" as a justification to pinion the media and the victim and for the cardinal to set humself up as "the good guy". He may very well be just that but in this instance a greater degree of humility and integrity would do more.
Simply put, the chimera of "either or" laid out by the cardinal's statement (it is nothing less) places his motivations squarely on the table - self justification and discrediting the media and the victim.
The current global"explosion" of hierarchical coverup at any cost and self, as well as institutional, protection at the expense of the victims and the odiousness of the crimes is sufficient reason for the victim to "dis-believe" the paternal solicitiousness of the hierarchs involved.
The ball is now squarely in
The ball is now squarely in the court of 10 people.
Belgian Catholic officials now confirm that, just four months ago, Belgian Cardinal G Danneels a man once considered to be a likely candidate for Pope, tried to cover up admitted clergy child sex abuse, by urging a victim to stay silent. What’s worse is that Danneels did this even though the acknowledged predator was still in active ministry around kids and able to molest others.
Nine Belgian bishops, especially Danneels' successor Archbishop André-Mutien Léonard, should now publicly urge the Pope to discipline Danneels. If they don't, they are essentially endorsing Danneels' irresponsible, callous and hurtful actions. Staying silent about child sex cover ups is just as harmful as engaging in child sex cover ups.
The victim was smart for tape recording the meeting. We strongly urge victims to never meet alone with church officials. (Church officials almost never meet alone with victims.) In several instances, after a victim or advocate has met alone with church officials, those church officials claim money was extorted or threats were made. It's inherently dangerous and unwise for victims to meet alone with any church officials about abuse.
The notion that Danneels was somehow "naive" or "unprepared" for the meeting is absurd. We strongly suspect that Danneels has had dozens of such meetings over his 32 years as a bishop. For almost 29 years, Danneels headed the Belgian Bishops Conference. In that role, we strongly suspect he helped set the tone and direction of how church officials all across the country deal with child sex abuse reporters.
Two months ago, Pope Benedict pledged to “do everything possible” to prevent future child sex crimes by clergy. Here’s his opportunity to take effective action to deter future crimes and cover ups. He can do what top church officials have done for decades, and do nothing about the admitted misdeeds of a bishop. Or he can chart a new course, and use his power to discipline this bishop. If he does nothing, he sends a strong signal that concealing known child sex crimes is still OK in the church. It’s as simple as that.
Barbara Dorris
snapdorris@gmail.com
314 862 7688
I am outraged that we are
I am outraged that we are BLAMING THE VICTIM HERE!!!!!
RAPISTS ARE RAPISTS ARE RAPISTS!!!!
AND BELONG BEHIND BARS WITH OTHER CRIMINALS!!!!!
Once again, an apologist for
Once again, an apologist for the hierarchy has missed the point: this issue is not about "reconciliation"; the issue is about justice. I notice that the attorney here was careful not to include the part where Cardinal Danneels tells the nephew that he must admit his own guilt. And just what guilt was that? Was the Cardinal suggesting that the nephew, as a young boy, seduced his archbishop uncle? It all seems to me to be a case of good, old-fashioned "blaming the victim". And having to hire an attorney to speak for you is never a good sign.
Over the years, I have come
Over the years, I have come to regard Cardinal Danneels as a real and true pastor. He never threatened or intimidated anyone, but preached and taught as a real, understanding and compassionate pastor. I would often think, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had more cardinals/bishops/priests like him in this country."
The way the media (particularly De Standaard) has presented him in his involvement(or lack of it) in the sexual abuse case involving bishop Vangheluwe, indeed amounts to a character assassination. This is not the cardinal as Belgians and others have come to know him. I, and many others, have every reason to keep this cardinal in high esteem. I wish him well.
"Almost everyone agrees that
"Almost everyone agrees that legally, the Cardinal did nothing wrong. We moreover consider the Cardinal has acted in a morally irreproachable way".
Almost everyone also agrees that legally and morally these are two completely seperate concepts. Legally, abortion may be the law of the land, but morally it is wrong. Legally, the death penalty is the law of the land, but morally it, too, is wrong.
Lawyers (legally) covering up for (immoral)Bishops...wordsmith at its absolute worst.
Scandal would be in no one's
Scandal would be in no one's best interests?
Rubbish. Scandal is a common way to shine the light on evil behavior. A light that needs to be shined.
What is scandal? It is letting people know what someone has done wrong. We need very badly to let people know what the predator priests, and Bishops, have done wrong so that people can guard against the proliferation of such evil.
The real objection the Church has to scandal is that it doesn't want people to know the truth about the Church. It is a clear indication that the Church hierarchy has little of the faith it preaches; rather than rely on its own teaching that God will not let the Church die, it takes the position that it must lie to the people in order to keep the Church from suffering, or should I say in order to keep the individuals in the Church hierarchy from suffering?
Hopelessly naive doesn't
Hopelessly naive doesn't begin to touch it! How many years have these characters spent closing their eyes to the horror? Silence in the face of evil is more evil.
NCR reported on August 30 the
NCR reported on August 30 the cardinal "didn’t call the police, he didn’t immediately seek removal of the bishop, he didn’t act immediately to find out whether there had been other victims".
Mr. Keuleneer has given credence to this. There is nothing in his "defense" which suggests NCR's report is inaccurate.
WHAT?! Well what does it
WHAT?! Well what does it take for the Cardinal to get really mad?
This whole situation is
This whole situation is dreadfully sad. Again the victim is being victimized. Taken out of context? Please, we need to cut the financial strings to the Vatican completely. Cutting off the money will help to cut out the continued UnChristlike behavior.
The Church has becomes a
The Church has becomes a cancerous organ and it is hemorraging badly. We need to surgically remove the cause of this cancer, the hierarchy, in order to bring the patient back to good health.
The rest of this organ is well and functioning perfectly. The overseership, serving it's own needs and protective of it's own right and privileges, has become redundant. It drains life from the rest of the body. It has to be plucked out before the otherwise healthy patient is infected.
The Roman Church has become
The Roman Church has become so completely disfunctional that members of the hierarchy, guilty of criminal acts against children have to be exposed by family member victims before they will resign, and lawyers are now required to interpret, and provide spin on, conversations between clergy and the laity.
We may never know the total number of cardinals and bishops who are guilty of unspeakable acts against children or protected priests who did the same, since there is no transparency or public vetting in the selection of these men. They are chosen in an incestuous process where, those chosen in secret, choose men like themselves who preserve the secrecy. It is sick and perverted.
I am a cradle catholic in my 60s and I am fed up. I will never contribute another cent to any diocesan collection until there is meaningful church reform. I will skip the 'middle-men' and give only to the underlying charities. I encourage others to do the same.
We no longer need these corrupt men spending our money on expensive robes and fine housing with servants, only to have them protect pedophiles. We don't need them to be catholic.
better R. Sipe's knowledge:
better R. Sipe's knowledge: "I only lie when I have to "
thought even a Cardinal (s laywer) has rights:
http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/videos/responsi...
FYI (and welcome to the European language barrier :-))
Overheidsaansprakelijkheid onder het EVRM
Het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens heeft in eerdere jurisprudentie
bepaald dat seksueel misbruik onder de reikwijdte valt van het verbod op
onmenselijke behandeling, zoals neergelegd in artikel 3 EVRM (see f. e.
10 mei 2001, Z. e.a. tegen het VK, appl. no. 29392/95, § 74 en
uitspraak van 26 november 2002, E. e.a. tegen het VK, appl. no. 33218/96). In
geval van seksueel misbruik in horizontale relaties – waarvan in casu sprake is – kan staatsaansprakelijkheid onder het EVRM ontstaan, indien een staat nalaat om de nodige preventieve (kinderbeschermings) maatregelen te nemen zodra een overheidsorgaan weet of behoort te weten van seksueel misbruik. Verder rust de plicht op de overheid om een effectief, onafhankelijk onderzoek in te stellen bij vermeende schendingen van artikel 3 EVRM. De relevante passages uit de Hofuitspraak van 26 november 2002 luiden:
“These measures should provide effective protection, in particular,
of children and other vulnerable persons, and include reasonable steps
to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have
had knowledge […]. The Court is satisfied that the pattern of lack
of investigation, communication and co-operation by the relevant
authorities disclosed in this case must be regarded as having had a
significant influence on the course of events and that proper and
effective management of their responsibilities might, judged reasonably, have
been expected to avoid, or at least, minimise the risk or the damage
suffered.”
Ten aanzien van het ex post facto onderzoek dat moet worden ingesteld kan nog
het volgende worden opgemerkt. Uit de Straatsburgse jurisprudentie kan worden
afgeleid dat een in te stellen onderzoek aan de volgende randvoorwaarden moet
voldoen:
- Het onderzoek moet automatisch worden opgestart door de autoriteiten
nadat zij op de hoogte zijn geraakt van het vermeende incident. (1)
- Het onderzoek moet onafhankelijk zijn, dat wil zeggen dat de personen
die het onderzoek leiden onafhankelijk dienen te zijn van de betrokkenen
bij de vermeende schending van het EVRM. (2) Het Hof heeft overwogen dat
supervisie door een andere autoriteit, hoe onafhankelijk ook, onvoldoende
waarborg biedt voor een eerder niet-onafhankelijk onderzoek. (3)
- Het onderzoek moet effectief zijn. De autoriteiten moeten redelijke
maatregelen hebben genomen om bewijs veilig te stellen en om logische
onderzoekshandelingen te verrichten.
- Het onderzoek moet tijdig worden uitgevoerd. (4)
- Het onderzoek moet kunnen leiden tot de identificatie en bestraffing van
diegene die verantwoordelijk is. “This investigation, as with that under
Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and
punishment of those responsible”.(5) Dit is ook in lijn met Straatsburgse
jurisprudentie dat primair naar het strafrecht gekeken moet worden bij
gevallen van seksueel misbruik.(6)
- Het onderzoek moet transparant zijn, al heeft het Hof wel aangegeven dat
de mate van ‘public scrutiny’ per geval kan verschillen.(7)
1 EHRM 4 mei 2001, Kelly e.a. t. het Verenigd Koninkrijk (appl. no. 30054/96): “(…) the authorities must act of their own motion, once the matter has come to their attention.”.
2 EHRM 27 juli 1998, Güleç t. Turkye (Reports 1998-IV), r.o. 81-82 en EHRM 28 juli 1998, Ergi t. Turkye (Reports 1998-IV), r.o. 83-84.
3 EHRM 4 mei 2001, McKerr t. UK (Reports 2001-III), r.o. 128.
4 EHRM 14 maart 2002, Paul & Audrey Edwards t. UK (appl. no.
46477/99), r.o. 72. Zie in het kader van artikel 3 EVRM: EHRM 6 april 2000, Labita t. Italy (appl. no. 26772/95), r.o. 133 e.v.
5 EHRM 28 oktober 1998, Assenov t. Bulgaria (appl. no. 24760/94), r.o. 102.
6 EHRM, 26 maart 1985, X.&Y. t. Netherlands (appl. no. 8978/80).
7 EHRM 14 maart 2002, Paul & Audrey Edwards t. UK (appl. no.46477/99), r.o. 73.
Nothing is ever simple. This
Nothing is ever simple. This lawyer spins a great plot; the book/movie would be a good one. According to his version Cardinal Danneels is portrayed as victim. First, at a gathering in his honor he is shanghaied by a fellow cleric who phoned the Cardinal to reveal his abusing ways only days before (no mention of contrition however). Second, he finds himself in an impossible situation due to naivete. Third, the retired Cardinal is flabbergasted because the meeting was taped w/o his knowledge. Finally,totally with no justification again, the Cardinal is victimized in the latest phase of the mess: an attempted public smear of the original abuse-victim.
Simultaneously, readers see the original criminal only as minor player. His one desire was to keep things quiet until he could honorably retire before being "outed" as an abuser and made to resign with dishonor thereby calling forth bad ecclesiastical PR. In addition the first and long-suffering original victim (along with his immediate family) is portrayed as vindictive, greedy, and unyielding.
The only thing a reader can probably take as factual from the accounts we've read is the lawyer's statement early on as prologue to the story: "Almost everyone agrees that, legally, the Cardinal did nothing wrong." And the global saga continues....
Why are you publishing an
Why are you publishing an advocate's statement without analysis or corroboration? The entire statement self-serves the interests of the Cardinal and his advocate. It is really nothing more than a press release that you have retransmitted without any journalistic vetting.
"Why are you
"Why are you publishing..."?
I don't think it unreasonable, Anonymous, that NCR is giving the person accused (the Cardinal)right of reply. He is, after all, being accused of serious wrongdoing, if not criminal offending, so natural justice demands no less. No doubt we'll be hearing plenty more, as the story unfolds - I'm sure the newspaper that published the original story will be firing back, for starters.
Then, after a while, perhaps we'll be in a better position to make a considered judgement, based on the facts in this particular case and not on stereotyping, which quite a number of the comments in response to this article and the previous one exhibit.
Donald Mac
I would like to thank the NCR
I would like to thank the NCR in accepting Fernand Keuleneer's offer to present another side to this issue (an offer that I encouraged NCR to accept in one of my posts). Clearly, this is a very tragic situation for everyone involved. I don't have an argument with what Mr. Keuleneer has put forth. And as painful as it may sound and as contrary to, what may be a very natural instinct to hold on to injury, what Mr. Keuleneer says about forgiveness is true, profound and, when one is able to do it, quiet extraordinary. I can understand the difficulties involved in this, as I have, at times, found both granting and asking for forgiveness very difficult and, on occasion, impossible (I have no comfort level in admitting that). None-the-less, there is just no way around it, it is what we, as Christians, are called to do.
Yet, I am still troubled with Cardinal Danneels saying to the nephew "you can ask for forgiveness and, well, acknowledge you own guilt" Can Mr Keuleneer please explain what is the guilt that the nephew has and for what is he to be asking for forgiveness. Without an explanation to this, it sounds like a ploy to turn the tables around and make the victim the guilty party. This has been a strategy that has, too often, been used in these cases and to see it used here is troubling. If, perhaps, there is a reason to make such a request, it would change things. So far, no reason is given so one can only conclude that it is the often used abusive emotional ploy of the past.
My prayers for all involved in this tragic situation.
John David
Forgive, yes. Forget, NO.
Forgive, yes. Forget, NO. These corrupt men, the current hierarchy of the church, should not be leading our church... or any church. They should be forced to resign. They are all part of a conspiracy to protect themselves, not the church. They have done great harm to the institution, but more importantly, they have committed crimes and conspired against the people of God.
We would not use a bank, where we knew they were guilty of embezzlement. We do not need a church where children are raped or where such rapes are covered up or excused.
Ken, You read more into my
Ken, You read more into my post than I intended. I don't, and never have disagreed with anything that you say. Yes, the sexual abuse scandal indicates that the current system just does not work and needs to be restructured. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the present structure breeds the kind of conspiracy of protection you mention. I also agree that many of the Church's leaders involved need to be replaced. So there is nothing that you have said with which I would take issue. My point about forgiveness was that, in spite of just how hard, to impossible, it can be, it remains an important, healing and intrinsic part of being a follower of Christ. I was addressing the situation of the nephew as well as the many others who find themselves in this very ugly, damaging and difficult situation. Yet, I believe that forgiveness really is the only way out. My prayers are and will remain with them.
I'm sorry you read my post as supporting the abuser and the structure that protected them. That was not my intention at all. I am sure that I support change as much as you do
Christ's peace be with you.
John David
Dear Mr. David, "You can ask
Dear Mr. David,
"You can ask forgiveness" should be read "One can ask forgiveness", meaning of course not the victim but the bishop. This is just a matter of Flemish dialect where "you" is also used to mean "one". There is really no disagreement or different interpretation of this over here, whatever the point of view on the cardinal, throughout the spectrum.
Regards,
Fernand Keuleneer
When will the hierarchy learn
When will the hierarchy learn that listening to their lawyers on these matters is always a bad idea - both legally and pastorally. The hole just gets deeper and leads straight to Hell.
Reading this stuff is
Reading this stuff is sickening. A Prince of the Church has his attorney spin his own words. The U. S. Military disciplines officers, even senior officers. From what I can see there is no discipline whatsoever once a priest is ordained to the Episcopacy. In the most egregious cases they are asked to retire early ( Martino - Scranton, Law - Boston ) so as to continue to save face. That is an anachronism, a feudal system in modern times. Even at this late date the mentality is to sweep it all under the rug, delay. Whether it's the advise given here or the 11th hour Bankruptcy filing done by the Diocese of Wilmington last fall on the eve of abuse civil trials, the avoidance of dealing with the ugly reality of abuse is a fact that the modern media is all too happy to document via the internet.
Law did not retire. He left
Law did not retire. He left his post in Boston and was whisked out of the US by the Vatican (a foreign state) just hours before he was to be served with a subpoena to testify and provide documents in Boston. The pope has given him a prestigious position in Rome. He is still a Cardinal - a prince of the church - and eligible to be pope some day. The Vatican protects itself... the institution... above all else. It does not protect the people.
"Can Mr Keuleneer please
"Can Mr Keuleneer please explain what is the guilt that the nephew has and for what is he to be asking for forgiveness. Without an explanation to this, it sounds like a ploy to turn the tables around and make the victim the guilty party. This has been a strategy that has, too often, been used in these cases and to see it used here is troubling".
Yes, and a rather obvious ploy at that. I think the cardinal needs better legal representation than this. If Danneels has to go into a Belgian court with testimony of this order, he may end up as a glorified parish priest. Just as Cardinal Law did and with an equally ignominious end to what could have been an outstanding career in the annals of Church history, and as a serious contender for the papacy just five years ago.
"Not once during the meeting
"Not once during the meeting does the Cardinal exert any form of pressure on the abuse victim."
This is simply not true. The cardinal tried to get the victim to wait till the Bishop retired. The cardinal accused the victim of blackmail. The cardinal asked the victim to ask for forgiveness. Yet, he now wants us to believe that no pressure was exerted.
"a public scandal, which, as the Cardinal very correctly pointed out, would be in nobody's interest."
Bringing this to the notice of the public serves nobody's interest? Really??
The cardinal claims this on one side and yet also makes the claim that he did not try to cover up the abuse!
The Cardinal's knee-jerk
The Cardinal's knee-jerk response was to try to shift the blame to the nephew: "Yes but...You can also ask forgiveness and, well, you can also acknowledge your own guilt." When challenged on this by the nephew, the Cardinal appears to backpedal a bit. But later the Cardinal reacts as if the whole incident is about the nephew blackmailing the Church: "So you can grab us and try to blackmail us, huh, and say: 'you have to do something!' " Again, the nephew was looked on as the source of wrongdoing, the source of all this trouble.
This has been a serious problem with many who have careers in the Church: They try to inflict undeserved guilt on people to get the world to go the way they want. The Church has played free and loose with guilt as a way to oppress basically good, honest people striving to do the best they can. The conversation is an instructive example how some Church careerists attempt to use guilt as power, and how this tactic is embedded in the culture. Why has the Church taken this route? Perhaps it uses the subservience bought with guilt to feed a hunger for power.
That said, I am not really comfortable about tape recording conversations without consent. You can see how it was probably the only way for the nephew to achieve credibility, what with the hierarchy's stonewalling and blame shifting, but there is still something not right about it. But it appears to be the lesser wrong here.
Power is emptying another to
Power is emptying another to fill ourselves.
Post new comment