The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionWill Ratzinger's past trump Benedict's present?
The pope and the sex abuse crisis
Mar. 17, 2010
Pope Benedict XVI delivers a blessing at the start of his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican March 17. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Analysis
Gino Burresi may sound like the name of a shortstop from the '50s, but among Vatican insiders, it marks a watershed in the sexual abuse crisis. For those with eyes to see, the fall from grace of Burresi, a charismatic Italian priest and founder of the Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, shortly after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, was taken as a signal that the days of lethargy and cover-up were over.
Burresi, 73 at the time, was barred from public ministry in May 2005, just one month after the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the church's top job. While the decree cited abuses of confession and spiritual direction, Vatican sources were clear that accusations of sexual abuse involving Burresi and seminarians, dating to the 1970s and '80s, were a principal motive for the action against him.
When the same axe fell a few months later on Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, the high-profile founder of the Legionaries of Christ, against whom accusations of abuse had likewise been hanging around for the better part of a decade, the message seemed unmistakable: There's a new sheriff in town.
In retrospect, the Burresi and Maciel cases crystallized a remarkable metamorphosis in Joseph Ratzinger vis-à-vis the sexual abuse crisis. As late as November 2002, well into the eruption in the United States, he seemed just another Roman cardinal in denial. Yet as pope, Benedict XVI became a Catholic Elliot Ness -- disciplining Roman favorites long regarded as untouchable, meeting sex abuse victims in both the United States and Australia, embracing "zero tolerance" policies once viewed with disdain in Rome, and openly apologizing for the carnage caused by the crisis.
In a papacy sometimes marred by scandal and internal confusion, Benedict's handling of the sexual abuse crisis has often been touted as a bright spot -- one case, at least, in which the expectations of the cardinals who elected him for a firmer hand on the rudder seem to have been fulfilled.
That background makes the scandals now engulfing the church in Europe especially explosive, because by putting the pope's all but forgotten tenure as the Archbishop of Munich from May 1977 to February 1982 under a microscope, they threaten to once again make Benedict seem more like part of the problem than the solution.
As of this writing, there's at least one case on the record of a priest accused of abuse who was reassigned in Munich while Ratzinger was in charge, and who went on to commit other acts of abuse. The vicar general at the time has assumed "full responsibility" and insisted that Ratzinger wasn't informed, but it nevertheless happened on his watch. For all anyone knows at the moment, there may be other such cases.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
The question now is whether Ratzinger's past may trump Benedict's present. What weighs more heavily: Benedict's willingness to weed out abusers and to acknowledge the damage they left behind, or the church's inability to enforce similar accountability for bishops who failed to act -- a failure possibly reflected in the pope's own stint as a diocesan leader three decades ago?
That question is certain to put Benedict XVI's entire record on the sexual abuse issue, stretching over more than three decades of leadership in the Catholic church, under new scrutiny.
The Munich years
Prior to his appointment as Archbishop of Munich by Pope Paul VI in March 1977, Joseph Ratzinger had been a professional theologian, not a pastor. His natural habitat, so to speak, was not the rectory or the diocesan chancery, but the faculty lounge of prestigious German universities in Bonn, Münster, Tübingen, and Regensburg.
The Archdiocese of Munich and Freising is a sprawling jurisdiction, one of the largest in the world in terms of budget, personnel, and physical plant. It encompasses almost 800 parishes, divided into 40 deaneries. Serving as archbishop was Ratzinger's first real taste of nuts-and-bolts administrative work, and the record seems to show that it wasn't his top priority.
For one thing, the newly elected John Paul II tried to appoint Ratzinger in early 1979 as prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education in Rome. Ratzinger demurred, saying it was too soon after his arrival in Munich, and John Paul agreed to hold off -- but made it clear he wouldn't wait forever. In a sense, from that point forward, Ratzinger's horizons were much larger than Munich.
Almost from the moment Ratzinger became archbishop, he was drawn into matters outside the archdiocese. Made a cardinal in June 1977, he participated in the two conclaves of 1978, electing John Paul I and John Paul II. In 1980, he served as the relator, or general secretary, of the highly contentious Synod for the Family. Behind the scenes, John Paul enlisted Ratzinger's help in supporting the fledgling Solidarity movement in Poland, taking him along on his first 1979 homecoming.
That background lends a whiff of credibility to claims that Ratzinger was not personally involved in decisions about the assignment of priests, since there's every reason to believe that administrative matters of all sorts weren't on his radar screen. In 1984, when the controversial book The Ratzinger Report appeared, a group of Munich priests issued a letter of protest, among other things claiming that while Ratzinger had been their shepherd, they had virtually no contact or dialogue with him.
Whether that will be enough to insulate Benedict from the fallout of decisions made in his name, however, remains to be seen.
Late last week, the Munich newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung broke the story of a priest, now identified as Peter Hullermann from the Essen diocese, who had been accused of sexual abuse -- including forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex -- and sent to Munich for therapy in 1980, with Ratzinger's consent. Hullermann was then given a pastoral assignment in the archdiocese, apparently without Ratzinger's knowledge, where he went on to commit other acts of abuse for which he was criminally convicted in 1986 -- well after Ratzinger had relocated to Rome in 1982. Hullermann paid a court-imposed fine and served a sentence on probation. Despite that, he continued to serve in a variety of posts in the archdiocese until March 15, when he was formally suspended.
The cleric who served as Ratzinger's vicar general in Munich, Gerhard Gruber, assumed "full responsibility" for the original 1980 assignment, insisting that there were more than 1,000 priests in the archdiocese at the time and that Ratzinger entrusted that kind of personnel matter to subordinates.
To be sure, not everyone was ready to accept that version of events.
"We find it extraordinarily hard to believe that Ratzinger didn't reassign the predator, or know about the reassignment," said Barbara Blaine, of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, the leading advocacy group for sex abuse victims in the Catholic church.
The revelation about Ratzinger's Munich years is part of a mounting sex abuse crisis in Germany, with more than 300 allegations of abuse in various church-run institutions. The president of the German bishops' conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, met with Benedict XVI on March 12 to discuss the crisis, and has pledged a full investigation.
The German meltdown, in turn, comes as Benedict XVI is still working on a pastoral letter to Ireland to address a massive sex abuse crisis in that once ultra-Catholic nation, and as similar scandals begin to explode in Holland, Switzerland, and Austria.
Church-watchers in Germany say that reporters and activists are now feverishly combing through Ratzinger's Munich years, searching for other cases of predator priests who slipped through the cracks. The Vatican has reacted angrily to attempts to link Benedict XVI to the crisis on the basis of his Munich years, insisting that those attempts have "failed."
Ratzinger the Prefect
Ratzinger was appointed the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in November 1981, making him the Vatican's top doctrinal official. He had little direct responsibility for matters involving sexual abuse by priests, which typically came to Rome's attention only in the rare instances in which a diocesan bishop wanted to laicize a priest without his consent -- in which case, the matter fell to one of the Vatican's canonical tribunals.
To the extent anyone was tracking the sex abuse issue at the level of policy, it tended to be the Congregation for Clergy, whose main interest usually seemed to be defending the due process rights of accused priests.
To be sure, Ratzinger always had an exalted theology of the priesthood, and little patience for priests who sullied their office. Yet for more than two decades after his arrival in Rome in 1981, there's no evidence that he broke with the standard Vatican attitude at the time -- that while priests may occasionally do reprehensible things, talk of a "crisis" was the product of a media and legal campaign to wound the church.
Moreover, Ratzinger was personally responsible for one high-profile case which, in the eyes of critics, confirmed the Vatican's unwillingness to confront the problem: Charges of sexual abuse against Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.
Accusations that Maciel had abused members of the controversial order had circulated for several decades, but in 1998 a group of former members dumped the case directly in Ratzinger's lap. They filed a canonical complaint with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, since its disciplinary section handles certain serious offenses under canon law, including abuse of the sacrament of penance, and Maciel was accused of absolving his victims in the confessional.
That complaint languished until late 2001, when the mushrooming crisis in the States put new pressure on the Vatican to engage the sexual abuse issue across the board. Still, even though an investigation was launched, no action was taken against Maciel for the next four years -- in part, critics said, because he was protected by influential Vatican patrons, up to and including John Paul II himself.
Ratzinger's attitude toward the crisis at the time can perhaps best be gauged from comments he made on November 30, 2002, during an appearance in Murcia, Spain, at a conference organized by the Catholic University of St. Anthony. During a Q&A session after his talk, Ratzinger was asked: "This past year has been difficult for Catholics, given the space dedicated by the media to scandals attributed to priests. There is talk of a campaign against the church. What do you think?"
This was Ratzinger's reply:
Making Ratzinger's defensive tone all the more striking, his comments came after a summit between Vatican officials and American cardinals, as well as officers of the bishops' conference, in April 2002 to discuss the American crisis, a meeting in which Ratzinger participated.
For the record, in claiming "less than one percent" of priests were guilty, Ratzinger was relying on an analysis by writer Philip Jenkins, published in the mid-1990s, of the Chicago archdiocese. In the end, the U.S. bishops' own study concluded that accusations have been lodged against 4.3 percent of diocesan priests over the last 50 years, and some critics regard even that total as under-reported.
The turning point
Though it didn't look like it at the time, the turning point in Ratzinger's attitude came in May 2001, with a legal document from John Paul II titled Sacramentum sanctitatis tutela. Technically known as a motu proprio, the document assigned juridical responsibility for certain grave crimes under canon law, including sexual abuse of a minor, to Ratzinger's congregation. It also compelled diocesan bishops all over the world to forward their case files to Rome, where the congregation would make a decision about the appropriate course of action.
In the wake of the motu proprio, Ratzinger dispatched a letter to the bishops of the world, subjecting accusations of sexual abuse against priests to the authority of his office and insisting upon "confidentiality," which critics typically regard as a code-word for secrecy.
Whatever the merits of the 2001 letter, it set the stage for a dramatic change in Ratzinger's approach.
Msgr. Charles Scicluna, a Maltese priest who serves as the Promoter of Justice in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- in effect, its lead prosecutor -- said in a recent interview with the Italian Catholic paper L'Avvenire that the motu proprio triggered an "avalanche" of files in Rome, most of which arrived in 2003 and 2004. Eventually, Scicluna said, more than 3,000 cases worked their way through the congregation.
By all accounts, Ratzinger was punctilious about studying the files, making him one of the few churchmen anywhere in the world to have read the documentation on virtually every Catholic priest ever credibly accused of sexual abuse. As a result, he acquired a familiarity with the contours of the problem that virtually no other figure in the Catholic church can claim.
Driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as "filth" in the church, Ratzinger seems to have undergone something of a "conversion experience" throughout 2003-04. From that point forward, he and his staff seemed driven by a convert's zeal to clean up the mess.
Of the 500-plus cases that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealt with prior to Benedict's election to the papacy, the substantial majority were returned to the local bishop authorizing immediate action against the accused priest -- no canonical trial, no lengthy process, just swift removal from ministry and, often, expulsion from the priesthood. In a more limited number of cases, the congregation asked for a canonical trial, and in a few cases the congregation ordered the priest reinstated.
That marked a stark reversal from the initial insistence of Vatican officials, Ratzinger included, that in almost every instance the accused priest deserved the right to canonical trial. Having sifted through the evidence, Ratzinger and Scicluna apparently drew the conclusion that in many instances the proof was so overwhelming that immediate action was required.
Among insiders, the change of climate was dramatic.
In the complex world of court politics at the Vatican, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith became the beachhead for an aggressive response to the sexual abuse crisis. Ratzinger and his deputies sometimes squared off against other departments which regarded the "zero tolerance" policy as an over-reaction, not to mention a distortion of the church's centuries-long canonical tradition, in which punishments are supposed to fit the crime, and in which tremendous discretion is usually left in the hands of bishops and other superiors to mete out discipline.
Behind the scenes, some Vatican personnel actually began to grumble that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had "drunk the Kool-aid," in the sense of accepting the case for sweeping changes in the way priests are supervised and disciplined.
Ratzinger's transformation can also be glimpsed from an exchange with Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, which George described in April 2005, just after the conclave which propelled Benedict XVI to the papacy.
Two days before the opening of the conclave, George met Ratzinger in his Vatican office to discuss the American sex abuse norms, including the "one strike and you're out" policy. Those norms had been approved grudgingly in late 2002 by the Vatican, and only for a five-year period. George said he wanted to discuss with Ratzinger the arguments for making the norms permanent. Ratzinger, according to George, showed "a good grasp of the situation."
Forty-eight hours later, Ratzinger was the new pope. As is the custom, the cardinals gathered in the Sistine Chapel made their way, one-by-one, to the new pontiff in order to pledge their support and obedience. As George kissed his hand, Benedict XVI made a point of telling him, in English, that he remembered the conversation the two men had about the sexual abuse norms, and would attend to it.
The new pope's first words to a senior American prelate, in other words, were a vow of action on the crisis.
Ratzinger as Pope
While Benedict XVI's opening salvo with Burresi rang insider bells, his next move, with Maciel, got the attention of the wider world. In May 2006, NCR broke the news that Benedict had barred Maciel from public ministry, instructing him to live a life of prayer and penance. Due to his advanced age, no formal canonical trial would be held, but the verdict nevertheless seemed clear: Guilty.
Though Maciel died in January 2008, revelations of various scandals surrounding him continue to emerge -- including fathering a child out of wedlock, and plagiarizing some of his best-known spiritual writings. Benedict eventually ordered an apostolic investigation of the Legionaries, which is now reportedly complete, though it will be some time before conclusions are forwarded to the pope for whatever action he might take.
Given Maciel's high international profile, and his reputation for friends in high places, Benedict's move was widely taken as proof positive of a new dispensation in the Catholic church: If you're credibly accused of abuse, no power on heaven or earth will protect you from paying the price.
In his recent interview, Scicluna dismissed charges that Benedict XVI has engaged in any cover-up on sex abuse as "false and slanderous." Without naming names, Scicluna lauded Ratzinger's "courage in taking up some cases which were extremely difficult and delicate, sine acceptione personarum (without exception for anyone)."
The reference to Maciel seemed obvious, especially since Scicluna had been the lead investigator in the case.
Given the new tone Benedict had set, it was little surprise that in 2006, the Congregation for Bishops announced that a lightly modified version of the American norms for sexual abuse, including the "one-strike" policy, had been permanently approved. They were subsequently issued as "particular law" in the United States, making them binding on all American dioceses and eparchies (jurisdictions of the Eastern rite churches.)
Benedict's transformation into an apostle of "zero tolerance" has also been clear in press discussion in both Ireland and Germany. News reports indicate that the Vatican has supported local bishops in adopting tough policies along the lines of the American norms. That amounts to a remarkable reversal of fortune, given the ambivalence displayed in Rome not so long ago to the very same policies the papacy is now extolling as a global model.
Nowhere was Benedict's new tone on the sex abuse crisis clearer than during his April 2008 trip to the United States.
The $64,000 question coming into the trip was whether the pope would openly engage the crisis, or attempt to pass it off as water under the bridge. Early signals did not seem promising; Benedict declined to visit Boston, the epicenter of the recent crisis, and had no session with victims on his public itinerary. From the opening moments, however, it was clear that Benedict had no intention of ducking the question.
"We are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible [so] that this cannot happen in the future," the pope said in a session with reporters aboard the papal plane April 15 in response to a question from NCR.
Benedict argued that efforts to address the crisis have to unfold on three levels: the legal and juridical, the pastoral, and programs of prevention to ensure that future priests are "sound." Pointedly, the pope said, "It's more important to have good priests than to have many." In his address to American bishops at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on Wednesday evening, April 16, he returned to the theme. The pope devoted five full paragraphs to sexual abuse of children, referring to it as "evil" and a "sin."
On April 17 came the most dramatic papal gesture, and the biggest news flash, of the entire trip -- an unannounced and unprecedented meeting with five victims of sexual abuse. Most were from the Boston area, and they were accompanied by Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston. The meeting took place in the Vatican embassy in Washington and lasted roughly a half-hour.
Three of the five victims spoke to NCR and other media about the experience, describing it as a catharsis.
"I think there are already changes happening. There's definitely so much hope right now," said Faith Johnston, whose priest abuser was convicted of raping her when she was 15 and working Saturdays in a Catholic rectory. She said after the meeting that she had been unable to speak about her abuse in the presence of the pope, and was able to offer him only her tears.
Benedict repeated that pattern during his July 2008 visit to Australia for World Youth Day, once again meeting privately with victims and speaking publicly about the crisis in remarkably candid terms.
For the first time, the pope issued a direct apology in his own name: "I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured," Benedict said, assuring them that "as their pastor, I share in their suffering."
By the time the crisis in Ireland erupted last year, a new Vatican script seemed to be in place. Papal statements of concern were quickly issued, and a summit of Irish bishops and senior Vatican officials was swiftly convened for mid-February. Similarly in Germany, Zollitsch was in the pope's office briefing him on the crisis less than a month after it first blew up.
For anyone who recalled the slow and defensive response to the American situation eight years earlier, the change in Rome seemed almost Copernican.
A tale of two crises
Therein, however, lies the rub: relatively few people know or care how far the Vatican, or the pope, have come over the past eight years.
Insiders rightly insist that Benedict XVI deserves credit for breaking the wall of silence, and for demonstrating that no abuser will be protected on his watch. Yet for most outsiders, meaning the vast majority of Catholics and virtually everyone else on the planet, all that amounts to a no-brainer that should have been accomplished long ago.
From the beginning, the "sex abuse crisis" has actually been an interlocking set of two problems: the abuse committed by some priests, and the administrative failures of some bishops who should have known better to deal with the problem.
In general, the impact of Benedict's "conversion" has been felt mostly on that first level -- the determination to punish abusers, to adopt stringent policies governing future cases, to reach out to victims and to apologize for the suffering they've endured. So far, Benedict has not adopted any new accountability mechanisms for bishops. Aside from a few instances such as Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, few bishops have been asked, or instructed, to resign.
Support independent Catholic journalism.
|
As long as the perception is that the Catholic church has fixed its priests' problem but not its bishops' problem, many people will see that as a job half done.
In turn, that unfinished business is what makes the revelations in Germany so potentially damaging. To be sure, one could reasonably insist that Benedict's policies as pope are far more important than whatever happened on his watch in Munich thirty years ago. Yet if other cases of abusers who were reassigned emerge, even fair-minded people with no axe to grind may be tempted to ask: Can Benedict XVI credibly ride herd on bishops for failing to manage the crisis, if his own record as a diocesan leader isn't any better?
Much about the church's capacity to craft an "exit strategy" from the crisis -- and, perhaps, much about Benedict's own legacy -- may hinge on his ability to offer a convincing answer.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Stories in this series
|
The only reason the Vatican
The only reason the Vatican is admitting to the scandals is that they've been "outed". When I was growing up as such a devout Catholic, I was insulted by accusations that the catholic church was a cult shrouded in secrecy. In fact, and not for the reasons then thought to be true, but for the horrifying cover-up of abuse within the church for decades, it actually is a cult of secrecy. This church needs more than a sweeping, this needs a "power-ectomy". Benedict should seriously consider revising his self-important status, and see how the Eastern Orthodox leader works. The entire church would benefit from a good house-cleaning and a return to the message of Jesus the Christ. And by the way, sex abuse is not about sex, but about power and violence. It is a crime that needs to be prosecuted, not covered-up.
As I've stated many times,
As I've stated many times, Catholic Church leaders never counted on two things:(1)That the Victims/Survivors of clergy sexual assault would ever find the courage to speak out; (2) That there would ever be something called the World Wide Net. I am so proud of my fellow Clergy Abuse Survivors (Of All Faiths)who now stand together for the safety of children.
Thank you for putting all the
Thank you for putting all the salient points regarding this crisis into one paragraph. Spot on.
WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP?
WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP?
In a press release from the Holy See on March 9, 2010, "concerning cases of the sexual abuse of minors in ecclesiastical institutions," Director Fr. Federico Lombardi simply repeats some of the more clichéd responses and predictable excuses to the church's ever widening problems of sexual abuse, particularly that of minor children.
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=362995
The institutional Roman Catholic Church has reacted to the continuing sexual abuse debacle neither rapidly nor decisively, contrary to what Lombardi states. The Vatican has attempted to distance itself from what has happened in country after country, first categorizing it as an "American problem," then as a "homosexual problem."
What was done by church leadership in the United States, for example, it was forced to do by the pressure of public opinion after records, files and correspondence were forced into the public venue in 2002 by Judge Constance M. Sweeney, a very brave, grounded and principled Catholic woman in Boston, Massachusetts.
The church's response continues to be reactive rather than pro-active while minimizing the systemic and endemic abuse of power and authority which has enabled and exacerbated it on the one hand while covering it up whenever and wherever possible on the other.
The "wide-ranging context" is that in countries from the United States, Canada, Australia and Ireland to Austria, the Netherlands and Germany church authorities have repeatedly and consistently disregarded its own moral and Canon laws as well as the existing laws of the countries' in which these horrific crimes against humanity occurred.
The church has lost its way.
Lombardi does not mention nor does he admit to the well documented widespread cover-up of the sexual abuse of children by bishops and other church officials in many countries like the United States, that makes the church's sexual abuse problems particularly egregious. If church authorities had done the morally right thing initially, one wonders how many children would have escaped being sexually abused by a particular priest?
As Patrick Wall, a former priest himself, states:
"The Roman Catholic Church has the largest body of knowledge of non-incarcerated sexual offenders in the world."
Who, one has to ask, would have more knowledge of the internal machinations to cover-up and protect sexual predators from public scrutiny than Pope Benedict in his former position as Head of the Holy Office?
When are people of good will going to say, enough!
When are state legislators going to change the laws so that justice can be pursued for the thousands upon thousands of victims of childhood sexual abuse who have been unable to access let alone obtain justice?
In most states and probably in most countries, existing criminal as well as civil laws give more protection to sexual predators and their enablers then they do to victims of childhood sexual abuse by anyone. The problems with statutes of limitation which have expired are probably much the same in Germany and other European countries as they have been is in so many jurisdictions in the United States. This is deplorable and should not be the case.
The removal of all statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children is the single, most effective way to hold predators and enabling institutions accountable before the law. More than that, window legislation which allows a set time frame for previously time barred cases of sexual abuse, by anyone. It is possible to change the laws in order to give some semblance of justice to those ravaged at so tender an age. What is needed to effect that change is the will to hold all sexual predators of children accountable along with any enabling individuals or institutions.
The state of Delaware in the United States is one of a very few states in the U.S. which have removed all criminal and civil statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children by anyone. It also legislated a two year civil window for previously time barred cases, again, by anyone. That window closed in July of 2009.
In a civil suit, unlike a criminal suit, the burden of proof that any sexual abuse took place is on the plaintiff. The burden is not on the accused individual or institution to prove innocence, at least not in the United States.
Every victim of childhood sexual abuse should have a right to the pursuit of justice at the very least!
What people seem to forget is that children’s rights are human rights, that children’s rights are civil rights and that the hierarchy, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, has violated those children’s rights in the most profane of ways, not only by covering up for sexual abusers, mostly priests, but also by enabling the further abuse of untold numbers of children by these particular individuals who were known to be dangerous predators.
If Delaware can do it other states and other countries should be able to do it and hold sexual predators and any enabling institutions responsible, especially when those institutions choose to ignore their own internal laws.
I was privileged to testify before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in support of the 2007 Child Victims Law in Delaware.
No rules and no laws of any religious organization or denomination should be allowed to trump the laws of a civilized society where the protection of children is concerned.
Not only should the institutional Roman Catholic Church be held to the highest standard as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it should be leading by example and showing what can and should be done to protect children from sexual exploitation, from what really is just another example of trafficking in individuals for purposes of sexual exploitation, nothing less.
By any objective standard this church has for decades grossly violated the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Perhaps it is time to formalize those violations as the crimes against humanity they truly are?
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
HOLDING CLERGY AND CHURCH
HOLDING CLERGY AND CHURCH LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE THE LAW
Professor Marci Hamilton and Sister Maureen Paul Turlish on NPR's Radio Times on WHYY Philadelphia 04/12/2010
http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2010/04/12/holding-clergy-and-church-lead...
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
I agree. The Eastern
I agree. The Eastern Orthodox can surely teach the Romans something---and besides they have more credibility than the Romans. But, don't get your hopes up. There are still too many lay people that actually believe in Rome.
What a sugar-coated story.
What a sugar-coated story. Pope Benedict only apologized when forced and has done nothing to adequately address the roots of the problem. Children remain in danger to this day across the globe.
Agreed.
Agreed.
As usually, as may here
As usually, as may here "Therein, however, lies the rub: relatively few people know or care how far the Vatican, or the pope, have come over the past eight years." just like Allen says.
Sure many people are angry, but anger is no excuse for ignorance or for prejudice and hate.
The captain of a ship
The captain of a ship ultimately has the responsibility for its safe course or its demise. Certainly, as archbishop, cardinal or pope, a priest is a priest. B16 knew that his priestly ordination was the primary basis on which he would define his duties in light of shepherding God's people to safe pasture, which is first and foremost, regardless other corporate, administrative duties.
If he's somehow forgotten this primary responsibility of priesthood in his climb to the top, then what sort of leader is he!
It's a Vatican shell-game.
"In 1984, when the
"In 1984, when the controversial book The Ratzinger Report appeared, a group of Munich priests issued a letter of protest, among other things claiming that while Ratzinger had been their shepherd, they had virtually no contact or dialogue with him."
Let's assume this is true and, perhaps, it is. What does that tell you about this pope's management style today? He may very well have been diligent in rooting out criminous clerics with his "once and you're out" policy, but Benedict is no longer a decastery head. He's at the zenith of Church authority and must now depend upon the advice and counsel of what appears to be a large pack of bumbling clowns beneath him.
What does this also tell you about how dioceses worldwide are managed? We have a very sick Church asleep in a medieval fantasy land.
The time has come for a radical pruning and modernization of the entire management apparatus from Rome to the smallest mission. Not a vertical lengthening of decison-making, but an enlarged horizontal decision-making structure. One not simply "consultative", but Catholic laity actually voting, deciding, and sharing in episcopal and parish oversight at every level of diocesan activity. New structures need to be placed strenghening national conferences of bishops including the laity, and the creation of a permanent World Synod replacing the Vatican in it's current state. It would have rotating membership of laity, lower clergy, and bishops. With a permanent secretariat serving BOTH the pope and the Universal Synod.
No pope or bishop should serve more than 12 years. Fixed term of office for every pastor, bishop, and the pope himself. Every priest and bishop must spend at least 5 years in foreign missions, regardless of his religious order's constitution. Another 5 years working amongst the poor, the aged, the neglected, the abused!!. No parish in the future could be formed without a firmly established outreach program to these and other groups in need.
Put an end to the career priesthood and episcopacy foisted upon the people without their consultation or their approval.
Thank you for a good article.
Thank you for a good article. I have been so disheartened in the last few days as the story from Germany unfolded--and have thought to myself if the pope himself cannot be trusted to do the right thing on this subject, where do we go from here--or more significantly, where do I go? Thanks for putting the story in context. And may I add that I am deeply disturbed that Bernard Law, resigned from Boston, maintains a role of leadership from Rome. As long as he serves on the committee that appoints bishops and heads a church in Rome--the message is clear: He still has power in the church. Bernard Law should be retired to a monastery or hermitage--until God calls him home.
Regarding Law: AMEN.
Regarding Law: AMEN.
Don't be silly speaking about
Don't be silly speaking about Cardinal Law. If you don't like it, sentence him to death and execute him.
Where he is now, he can only pray the Liturgy of Hours and celebrate the Mass at Santa Maria Maggiore like any other priest - that's all.
His alleged leadership consists in leading some groups of American tourists to the entrance of the Basilica to make a nice picture.
That he serves as a counselor for the appointment of the bishops? Don't take him for stupid. He is an intelligent man, and we can assume quite safely that he has learned from his error. And he does not decide anything anyway.
...Haven't you make in your life something wrong? And haven't you learned from it?
I'm sorry, but Cardinal Law's
I'm sorry, but Cardinal Law's position at Saint Mary Major is a scandal. I have never seen any evidence that he is sorry for the grave damage he did as shepherd of the flock in Boston.
Father Francisco on Mar. 18,
Father Francisco on Mar. 18, 2010.
You stated:
"Don't be silly speaking about Cardinal Law. If you don't like it, sentence him to death and execute him.
Where he is now, he can only pray the Liturgy of Hours and celebrate the Mass at Santa Maria Maggiore like any other priest - that's all.
His alleged leadership consists in leading some groups of American tourists to the entrance of the Basilica to make a nice picture.
That he serves as a counselor for the appointment of the bishops? Don't take him for stupid. He is an intelligent man, and we can assume quite safely that he has learned from his error. And he does not decide anything anyway.
...Haven't you make in your life something wrong? And haven't you learned from it?"
------------------------------------------------
Fr. Francisco,
When it comes to the Vatican, I assume nothing. And I don't care how intelligent Law is---he has no business being in any office in the Catholic Church. He should be in prison for the rest of his life. What he did was criminal---not just wrong----criminal. Let him do his penance behind bars!
Pray be specific, Little
Pray be specific, Little Bear, not histrionic. What particular law did His Eminence, Cardinal Law, break?
I am grateful beyond words that law is not determined based on what people think or feel. God forbid that ever come to pass! I am also grateful beyond words that our God is far more merciful and forgiving than you are.
As usual, John, you seem much
As usual, John, you seem much too eager to believe B16 and the official Vatican line and too ready to give him the benefit of the doubt. Here is what one respected conservative German paper reported on Saturday about the case of Father Peter Hullermann in the Munich archdiocese: "According to information provided to the Welt am Sonntag, it is hard to imagine that the [Munich archdiocese’s] number one, Archbishop Ratzinger, was not informed of this sensitive decision. On personnel matters Ratzinger always made sure to receive detailed reports. Gruber [the vicar general] and he shared a particularly close relationship. Gruber is internally described as 'completely subservient' to Ratzinger. He could now be a pawn sacrifice, which is to protect the pope." I think we need to brace ourselves for more coming out about Ratzinger's tenure in Munich.
As laudible as some of his actions in recent years may have been, the complete refusal to hold more bishops accountable for their appalling cover-ups and reassignments remains inexcusable. Equally disappointing is the fact that the pope, at least thus far, has failed to demand that Catholic bishops all over the world, on their own initiative, investigate and publicize what is in their files (rather than hoping such dirty secrets will not be discovered), reach out to and support the victims, openly discuss all causes and contributing factors, and institute sound abuse prevention policies. Without such proactive engagement, we will be faced with an endless stream of dispiriting revelations from country after country after country after country. Can anybody still believe that this problem is confined to the Catholic Church in the U.S., Ireland, Germany, and the handful of other countries that have been in the news until now?
"Can anybody still believe
"Can anybody still believe this problem is ... confined to US, Ireland, Germany?"
Yes, I believe it. In North America and northwestern Europe, the Catholic priesthood is predominantly homosexual. Elsewhere it is overwhelmingly heterosexual. Scandals in South America, Asia and southern Europe generally involve priests keeping "wives" with whom they have children. I predict the current situation in Brazil will prove a one-off.
Wow, that is a sweeping
Wow, that is a sweeping generalization. Unbelievable and sad, really. Show me references.
Many of the accusations in
Many of the accusations in the US involve inaprpriate relations with females. Some of those accused (including some who abused males) later left the priesthood and married women.
Also, some of the accused in the US were from other countries. The worst case is the diocese that's excuse was "we knew of the abuse, but thought it had occured only in Colombia and so did not report it".
There was also th case in Minneapolis of a priest who was living with a woman and accused of molesting her four-year-old child. He fled to his native India before he could be taken to jail.
Canada if anything has had a worse problem than the USA, with some of the abusers in the US having come from Canada. There have also been priests who have abused in Mexico shifted to the US and ones who abused in the US shifted to Mexico.
Australia has also face problems of abuse, and there are cases being investigated in New Zealand.
Since a few cases in the US have involved priests claiming "the woman lies, she was 18, not 17, when we had sex", and since there is a document from about 1999 claiming that there are many cases of priests in countries such as Nigeria coercing sex from nuns or even raping them, it appears there is a major crisis world wide.
Of course, the cirsis is not in the Catholic Church alone. Other organizations have often failed to face up to such problems, and there are many cases where the police were told and did nothing.
Allen wrote: "The Archdiocese
Allen wrote: "The Archdiocese of Munich and Freising is a sprawling jurisdiction etc." It doesn't matter if Ratzinger supervised thousands of priests. If we are to believe he took no note of a pedophile it means either it was of no import to him or so commonplace as to not deserve his attention.
John- a very insightful
John- a very insightful article that is helpful in understanding the trajectory of this problem. It is obvious that the Church has issues across the world with the way its leaders are chosen and held accountable. Please keep on this story.
Hi John, Once again, I am so
Hi John,
Once again, I am so very grateful for your excellent journalism. Your ability to summarize and then contextualize information is just marvelous. Thank you for the above.
Your article is the first I've read tying all the threads together; and to objectively name the strengths and weaknesses of the Church's response to this never ending crisis.
While I want to believe in the good intentions of the Holy Father, it is very difficult to do so because the Vatican has a communications problem. Their lack of communication fuels the secular media are who left to draw their own conclusions whether those conclusions be true or false
This crisis highlights the need the Vatican has for a media savvy, professional Communications Director to consistently engage the media. If I had any say in the matter, I'd recommend you for the job!
Gratefully,
Fr. Joseph Devlin
I would recommend the likes
I would recommend the likes of Karl Rove and Frank Luntz, Ph.D for the job of doing B16s PR These two guys can tweist the truth into a pretzel, split hairs and parse words so that no truth ever comes to the fore. They are the ultimate involutional and convoluted ideologues. They can twist the truth beyond all recognition.
Wow, this is the scariest
Wow, this is the scariest comment of the bunch so far. Why?
"Media savvy" and "communications director" equals... a more professional cover-up!
Are you sure that's what you want?
What the Vatican needs is
What the Vatican needs is certainly not a "media savvy, professional Communications Director to consistently engage the media." The Vatican needs to be honest and accountable for the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by its priests and to make impacting reforms immediately!
That the person in charge
That the person in charge (AKA bishop) doesn't know what's going on shows that the organization is too big...that it needs smaller units (AKA dioceses) where the bishop knows intimately what is going on with his administration, with his priests, with his parishes...even more this current scandal/situation shows the problems caused by clericalism and corporate ladder-climbing...a bishop needs to come from within his people/diocese, needs not to be moved around and ever upward...a bishop needs to be known by and emerge from the people.
While my diocese has had some good men coming out of the North American College, most that emerge scare the heck out of me...they are not prepared for parish work, work with the People of God...they are trained to be scholars (OK, we need some to teach, but without direct parish experience they remain removed from the trenches & spout doctrine or high falutin' theological language that shows a real lack of people skills) or they are in parish work for a year or two, certainly no more than that, and then keep up a steady climb further and further up the administrative ladder, still having had little to no people experience.
These clerical administrators are missing contact with the real Church...the people.
The Church needs a new way of governing, of teaching, of sanctifying...Jesus spent his time with the people, not with the High Priest or the Sanhedrin.
Cardinal Ratzinger, as
Cardinal Ratzinger, as archbishop of Freising and Munich, acted in the typical manner of bishops at the time, remove the temptation (the victim) from the sinner (the priest abuser). That was how the Church viewed such matters for the vast majority of her history.
It is only in recent years that society has seen the abuse of minors as the crime and horror that it is. As such, it is frankly remarkable that an institution as old as Mother Church, 2000 years, and that is accustomed to think and act in terms of centuries, rather than years, has come as far as she has. Is there more to do? Certainly. Is there farther still to go? Of course. Yet, definite progress has been made, and continues to be made, by Mother Church and her leaders.
One can only imagine the list of horrors, a demon's resume, if you will, that Pope Benedict was forced to read as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It must have been awful in every detail, and, as John Allen so properly points out, it was no doubt the result of his work on this issue at CDF that spurred in him the conversion that we have seen, from an archbishop who views abuse as a sin and who believed the proper method of dealing with priest abusers was to transfer them and seek psychiatric help, to a pontiff with zero tolerance for abusers in the clergy.
No man is perfect, no man without his faults. Yet, it seems that Pope Benedict has learned from the dossiers he was forced to read at CDF, the harm that can stem from clergy abuse, physically, emotionally and, most serious of all, spiritually. It is clear that the Holy Father has had one of those "conversion moments" and is more serious than ever about dealing with sexual abuse of minors by clergy definitively and pastorally.
You make a good point about
You make a good point about the growing awareness of the problem over the last 30 years. Society as a whole was much less conscious of the issue then. And I suspect most of the people trying to implicate Ratzinger in Munich have no idea of what running a large organisation is like - a respected school of mamagement theory says seven 'drect reports' is as much as anynone can handle.
An aspect of the Munich story that gets very little attention is that the secular courts - whom the church-bashers seem to think are the infallible new priesthood - imposed only a fine and a suspended sentence. Where is the outcry about this? This is far from the only such case. I suspect an investigation into the secular courts of the period would show that such leniency was commonplace. A UK lawyer told me of a similar case in the 1970s, not involving a cleric, in which the offender got off with a modest fine.
Here in Austrlia, there was a notorious gay/paedophile pick-up spot in Sydney called 'The Wall' which was undisturbed for decades and was frequened by a judge who was never arrested. A member of parliament who antagonised the gay lobby by drawing attention to it lost her Labor party endorsement and was subjected to racist taunts for being an 'emotional big-breasted Italian Mama' - so much for multiculturalism! Politically correct opinion went to the barricades to defend an 'artist' who speciaises in provocative photos of naked children - and of course Roman Polanski is untouchable.
It is rare for secular courts
It is rare for secular courts to take sexual abuse of a minor very seriously unless there has been bodily damage done. For the abuse of me and two siblings, my stepfather served only 7 years total. When the abuse began, I was 4, my older sister was 8, and my brother only 2 1/2 years old. When it ended I was 9, my older sister was 13, and my brother 7 1/2. I am 34 years old and still struggle to overcome the damage done, though through the grace of God the emotional scars are fading. My brother and sister have not turned to God and the impact of that early abuse is still evident in their lives. 7 years is nothing compared to what we have been through. Don't vilify the Catholic Church. Society doesn't do much better.
Brandy Your letter shows
Brandy Your letter shows something do many seem to miss Jesus is the Great Healer.God Bless you and your siblings I will keep you all in my prayers so that one day you will have the consolation and joy of seeing your siblings return to God and receive His healing touch.
Superb analysis, Clint. I,
Superb analysis, Clint.
I, too, believe the Pope has learned, and is trying to make amends for what can only be a very ugly issue to have to wade through.
But sexual abuse of minors is hardly just a clerical problem in Canada, or ELSEWHERE.
The amount of INCEST that occurs in Canada is staggering.
One in eight… female children, before the age of 14, have been molested NOT BY a parish priest… but by a father! A brother! A stepfather! An uncle! All persons from within their OWN SAFE FAMILIES!!
SEVEN PERCENT of sexual abuse of young boys occurs at the hands of their own mothers! Handjobs, blowjobs, cunnilingus, and full intercourse, all with mommy!
I suspect that with a lot of these guilty-as-charged molesting priests, the problem began within their own families. They then brought that deviancy INTO the Church.
The Church, and society was, in a previous generation, naive about how to deal with these perps. Mild chastisement, relocating, etc. were the order of the day. No more!
Zero tolerance, and incarceration are today's righteousness, thankfully.
So the defrocked priests are being dealt with severely, but what of the hordes… those perps of incest, eh?
Enemies of the Church like to shake their head at that Church, at times like these, but I insist we live on REALITY STREET. The priest problem is horrific, sickening, and evil.
But minor.
Out of every 100 KIDS you come across… 20 are dealing with incest.
AS A SOCIETY, let's move on to the real issue, shall we ~
I, too, believe, like you,
I, too, believe, like you, the current Pope has learned, and is trying to make amends for what can only be a very ugly issue to have to wade through.
Perps are incredibly adept at abusing large numbers of victims, over long periods of time, all the while keeping their activities hidden from interventionist authorities.
But sexual abuse of minors is hardly just a clerical problem in Canada, or ELSEWHERE.
The amount of INCEST that occurs in Canada is staggering.
One in eight… female children, before the age of 14, have been molested NOT BY a parish priest… but by a father! A brother! A stepfather! An uncle! All persons from within their OWN SAFE FAMILIES!!
SEVEN PERCENT of sexual abuse of young boys occurs at the hands of their own mothers! Handjobs, blowjobs, cunnilingus, and full intercourse, all with mommy!
I suspect that with a lot of these guilty-as-charged molesting priests, the problem began within their own families. They then brought that deviancy INTO the Church.
The institutional Church IS ALSO a victim.
The Church, and society was, in a previous generation, naive when dealing with these perps.
Mild chastisement, counselling, relocating, etc. were the order of the day. No more!
Zero tolerance, and incarceration are today's righteousness, thankfully.
So the defrocked priests are being dealt with severely, but what of the hordes?
Those copious perps of incest, eh?
What of them??
Enemies of the Church like to shake their head at that Church, at times like these, but I insist we must live on REALITY STREET. The priest problem is horrific, sickening, and evil.
But minor.
Out of every 100 KIDS you come across… 12 - 20 are dealing with incest.
AS A SOCIETY, let's move on to the real issue, shall we ~
But only pagans, heathens, and atheists, of good will.
Which leaves Hitchy, and most of you, out of the equation.
Forever—
John -- Good article, as
John -- Good article, as always. Could it be possible that the scandals in Europe were sprung at just this moment in order to discredit and weaken Pope Benedict? The Legion of Christ has a known MO of shredding an opponent's character and they have the domination of the media with which to do it. It is beyond comprehension how far their power extends in their effort to build a parallal church -- or to seize control of the authentic one. Since it was well publicized that this Apostolic Visitation was coming to a resolution, it would be likely that those who would most wish to damage the Holy Father would save up -- or manufacture -- a juice tidbit and give it to the media which is ever willing to oblige. There is to be a delay, according to the Legion of many months before anything is resolved, but they are still advertising that this AV was routine, to say what a good job they were doing, despite the sins of the founders. It is also possible that there is a stall-tactic underway by those in Mexico who, supposedly, wanted to give testimony to the Apostolic Visitation and were not able to do so, and have asked for more time. Time is to the advantage of the corporate planners behind the Legion because they can then morph into something else, hide the money, and take another shot at discrediting Pope Benedict. Their name is Legion! I wish that St. Patrick had a chance to drive a few more snakes into the sea!
I'm just not satisfied. I
I'm just not satisfied. I don't understand how priests can be "defrocked" and made to live lives of prayer and penance when their bishops, who were complicit, are allowed to remain in charge. My bishop recently retired and oh, my, you should have seen the pomp and circumstance surrounding his retirement. It has sickened me so, that this horrible man who knowingly destroyed so many lives, is made out to be a saint for spending 50 years in the ministry. Even though he is gone, the climate he left behind in this archdiocese is so bad that I've started attending Mass in another archdiocese, just to distance myself from the stench.
I'm glad B16 has taken a firm stand with the priests but I feel that he's doing all of us a disservice by giving the bishops a pass. It makes one wonder if he's being soft on the bishops because of his own tenure as bishop. Let's hope and pray nothing bad comes to light from his time in Munich because I don't think the Church can stand it.
John,I am very surprised by
John,I am very surprised by the inflammatory title of this article;what a departure from your usual balanced serious style.It sets the tone for preparing the reader to hear your views as to what the Pope needs to do to prove himself effective in his efforts to deal with sexual abuse by priests;a very different question from whether he had any substantive role in the Munich scandal,which I would have thought would have been the central focus of this article.This might have been a much more forceful analysis if it focused on the opportunities this new revelation presents for further refining the reforms which Benedict V1 has made rather than a challenge to his papal stature.
'For the record, in claiming
'For the record, in claiming "less than one percent" of priests were guilty, Ratzinger was relying on an analysis by Catholic writer Philip Jenkins, published in the mid-1990s, of the Chicago archdiocese...'.
- This statement is inaccurate and misleading. Philip Jenkins is NOT a Catholic writer. He has stated as much himself & noted that he is not to be regarded as a Catholic apologist. His article, "The Myth of the Paedophile Priest", references the Chicago Study which found that out of 2200 priests who had served in the Archdiocese in the previous 40 years, about 1.8% may have been guilty of sexual misconduct. He notes that this does not equate to paedophilia - out of those 2200 priests, ONE was a paedophile. Regarding Prof. Jenkins' religious affiliation, he says at the end of the article:
"My concern over the "pedophile priest" issue is not to defend evil clergy, or a sinful church (I cannot be called a Catholic apologist, since I am not even a Catholic). But I am worried that justified anger over a few awful cases might be turned into ill-focused attacks against innocent clergy. The story of clergy misconduct is bad enough without turning into an unpardonable outbreak of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church."
The article is at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0534.html
I realize, John, that for
I realize, John, that for your access to your sources at the Vatican, you cannot be too blunt. But talk about who has been drinking the Kool-Aid, you must be on a sugar-high! This is the Pope we are talking about who is able to demote and/or remove anyone in the hierarchy!!!! Not ONE bishop from the United States has been removed by this Pope; not ONE!!!!!! The one hierarch, Bernie Law, who was run out of town by the lay people was given a promotion by the Vatican and now lives in Rome free from extradition! The two non-American hierarchs that were removed by Benedict were so obviously guilty that to do nothing might indicate to the world that Benedict was complicit and a co-conspirator in their crimes. And then, oops there goes our "Papal Confidentiality" document! If you think this guy is "the new sheriff in town" then you must also believe that Barney Fife was a genius!
Thanks for your dead-on
Thanks for your dead-on comment. Like his fellow toadies in the corporate media, JA either toes the party line or loses "access." OTOH, souls have been sold for even less!
Just out of curiosity do you
Just out of curiosity do you need to borrow the hatched for articles like this or do you keep one primed and ready to swing?
Ratzinger stood ready to
Ratzinger stood ready to blame and bury the messengers of child sexual abuse and his recored is not good. John Allen, as usual, seems to be bending over backward to accommodate and explain away Ratzinger's actions in connection with child sexual abuse by clergy. The People of God are sick and tired of lies, denial, and propaganda to "handle" the crisis. This is one time in Catholic history where Benedict should resign as Bishop of Rome. His past can't be explained away by handlers and the more they try to do this, the worse the entire situation will get. It's time for a change.
In my mind, the test will
In my mind, the test will come with Benedict's letter to Ireland about the abuse crisis and what is to be done about it. If, as I hope, it contains specific action plans (resignations, reorganizations, more active involvement by the laity in administration and oversight, etc.), we will know that the pope is involved and in action. However, if it contains just more words, platitudes, theological roundelays, and the like - we will know that the Vatican, and the pope, either don't "get it," or refuse to "get it." That will be a major moral decision moment for many Catholics, myself included.
As long as we keep
As long as we keep questioning what is true, we surely will have doubts as to whether our Church is telling the truth. There needs to be a renewal. Could this be the beginning of a renewed church? Come Holy Spirit!
Although well written as
Although well written as usual, this is perhaps John Allen's worst article. He utterly fails to prove or even show how Pope Ratzinger was "transformed" from the average pedophile protecting bishop to a papal pedophile buster. He is indeed being criticized and condemned for not doing anything concrete against clerical abusers since his election and, especially, not saying a word about the priestly sex abuse scandal shaking his own country and accusations brought against him in his capacity as then archbishop of Munich.
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2010/03/17/cacher-ou-punir-...
Ratzinger handed children to
Ratzinger handed children to a convicted pedophile, all other "facts" are nothing but smoke and mirrors. He must go or be ignored. I suggest that church donations be carefully aimed so that they will not go to the vatican. It is time to starve the Beast.
Right on! It is time to rid
Right on! It is time to rid ourselves of the beast. You can bet that Bene will NOT resign---he has it too well in Rome. The whole thing simply stinks on all levels.
John, I read somewhere
John, I read somewhere yesterday that the priest was actually not assigned to a parish until after Benedict had left Munich. I don't know if that is true or not. Do you?
In your section on Benedict's
In your section on Benedict's record as cardinal/archbishop of Munich-Freising, you seem to imply that having John Paul II's interest in him and pulling him into international situations such as support for Solidarity made him into a "careerism" prelate? His forte may not have been administration but his integrity as a shepherd cannot be in question. After all, it was Paul VI who catapulted him into such a high profile position perhaps thinking as many do, that excellence in intellectual capacities can overcome any difficulties or aversion to administration. Wasn't it you who reported that in the run-up to the conclave as Ratzinger became aware of the movement to consolidate forces for his election he spread the comment "I am not an administrator!"?
What bothers me most are the outrageous headlines in the European and UK MSM papers linking "Benedict" with "sex allegations" and then going on to simply re-hash old news. And where is Card Bertone? Is he a ghost Secty of State? Where is the defense of the Holy Father from his closest collaborators? Msgr Scicluna's interview in Avenire came the closest I've seen and I was glad for it.
As an active Catholic in the pew I am so sick of hearing about allegations of priest-pedophiles in Ireland, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands .... I think I'm going to bypass these articles for a while and concentrate on praying triple hard for our Church and especially for the Holy Father, as his "onomastico" approaches.
Linda, thank you for your
Linda, thank you for your comments. Benedict's integrity, indeed, cannot be in question. As a lawyer, I can tell you that there are three scenarios to these allegations and all of them are tragic. First, some of them are true and it is tragic that a priest would violate a child and that priest should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Second, some of the allegations are not true and the person making them knows they are not true. This is tragic that someone would lie and ruin someone and do damage to God's Church. These people are motivated by money, hatred or whatever. We must be cognizant that many of the allegations today are made because the Church is not the only one, but certainly the strongest and biggest force speaking out against the culture of evil which becomes more pervasive throughout the world--abortion, euthanasia, the violation of the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman etc. Third, some of the allegations are not true, but the person making them is mentally disturbed and believes them to be true. As disciples of Christ, we must always try to discern the truth. We cannot give blind acceptance to anyone who alleges abuse nor can we totally dismiss their claims. People making such claims must be subject to rigorous cross-examanation. Failure to do so is a denial of justice to the accused. One must question as to why these allegations in Germany and throughout the world did not surface earlier. Let us pray for God's Church. The forces of evil (and that would include peodophiles) are working inside and outside the Church to destroy and kill Christ again.
Spoken like a true legalist,
Spoken like a true legalist, and I suspect also a member of the clergy! As a so-called Christian lawyer, how can you possibly even think of trying to run interference for dysfunctional clergy? First, we are talking about Jesus here: a man who always discouraged the establishment of hierarchy and institutional religion but consistently promoted the "little ones" and truth. Second, we have a leader [Ratzinger] in this institutional religion issuing an official document ordering members of the clergy, under pain of excommunication, to NEVER divulge to anyone outside of the Church's inner circle sexual abuse of minors. Third, we have pastors, bishops, and cardinals of this religious institution obliging parents and children "to keep secret" under pain of mortal sin what happened to them. My friend, "the forces of evil" of which you speak, control this institution. This organization is as far away from the love and truth and justice that Jesus talked and lived, that it ought not be allowed to use the adjective "Christian". Time for revolution among all Catholic Christians. The very least we can do is to stop our financial support and send the money to a worthwhile charity!
TAQ, thank you for the
TAQ, thank you for the compliments. Yes, a legalist in the sense of one who respects the rule of law and believes that everyone should be tried in an objective court of law rather than in the court of public opinion. No, I am not a member of the clergy, but one who admires clergy and religious, who though, not perfect, try to be faithful to their calling and the Gospel. Assuring that all get a fair trial is not "running interference." It works for the best of all people. If you read my post, with objectivity, you would see that I certainly do not condone the pedophiles. I did state that they were an evil force in the Church. I, unlike you, am also aware of the outside evil forces that ar trying to do damage to the Church of Christ. Perhaps with your self-righteousness, you should think long and hard about whether you should call yourself "Christian." If I can help you in any way, please do not hesitate to ask.
Interesting Benedict's
Interesting Benedict's treatment of Bernard Law during his pontificate.
Has Bernard Law received any consequences for his obstruction of justice in the peodophile cases? Let's see he continues to live a life of luxury in Rome--hardly a negative consequence. I guess the priests of Boston no confidence vote in him was the straw that broke the camel's back and sent him fleeing to safety in Rome as the whole world was watching how he got away with criminal activity. And the Catholic Church still expects an informed laity to pay, pray, and obey. Many Catholics have left the church over these unjust actions and others have boycotted with their $$$--sure to get the attention of the hierarchy. I think the "Good Old Boy's Club" is gasping for air and they brought this on themselves.
John, Thanks for an indepth
John,
Thanks for an indepth and balanced analysis.
Keep up the good work.
What I would like to know is why the Bishops of Essen/Munich in 1980 did not pick up the phone and call the police to report Fr H's abuse which was clearly a serious violation of German law ?
God Bless
Why they did they not call
Why they did they not call the police?
Maybe they were occupied with other "crimes":
priests who wanted to marry the girl they fell in love with
or
professors who disputed the pope´s infabillity or Mary´s biological virginity?
I have not yet seen answered
I have not yet seen answered the question of what information passed from the bishop of Essen to the Archbishop of Munich regarding the reasons the priest was being sent for therapy. Did Essen say what the reasons were? Most of the English stories about this conflate past and present information without being clear what information was passed to the Archdiocese of Munich back in 1980. I don't read German, so I do depend on correspondents writing in English to be clear about these things.
I come from Protestant roots
I come from Protestant roots that go back nearly 500 years, so I guess this question can be understood from that context, but what is the Papacy "good" for, really?
The papacy determines correct
The papacy determines correct doctrine (2 Tim 1:4) and pastors (supports) the people. The papacy determined your Sola Scriptura was unscriptural. It was given the power to bind and loosen (Matt 16:18-19, Matt 18:18) and this power remains until the end of the World (Matt 28:20).
I had to smile when reading
I had to smile when reading your post. After years of never-ending scandal and cover-up, there are Catholics asking the same question.
Dear Friends- I speak as
Dear Friends-
I speak as someone who grew up in the church, who served as an altar boy in my 20s to a chaplain in the U.S. Army in Germany, and who was quite active in lay organizations like, Religious Chair of the Catholic Youth Organization Federation of Los Angeles, and West Coast Public Relations Chair of the National Association of Catholic Alumni Clubs. Needless to say I have worked around many priests during a fifty year period while I was in the church. I went through a divorce in the late 1980s which separated me from the Roman Catholic Church. Ten years ago I joined the First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego.
I believe that most Catholic Priests are fine and healthy individuals who take their vow of chastity very seriously. I have enjoyed many good relationships with them. Nevertheless, the 4.3 percent of priests in the U.S. who have been accused of serious sexual offenses stand as a black mark against the Roman Catholic Church.
Over a fifty year period, I worked, closely, with more than one priest who demonstrated undue familiarity with the female sex. In one case, in particular, I remember how obvious it was that Father H., who had high level responsibilities with CYO youth, used to obviously enjoy the companionship of the young girls who he was close to. Now I never caught this person in flagrenti delecti, however I suspect that there were certainly many opportunities for him to stray from his vows, should he have chosen to do so. I wonder why his superiors, who must have known of his actions and his life style, never clamped down on his behavior, which clearly was out of line for someone who professed vows of chastity.
This makes me extremely suspicious of the way in which the church has protected the hierarchy in all of the revelations about sexual abuse. They only rarely, have been asked to step down from influential posts despite their lack of proper oversight of all of these many cases of sexual abuse on their watch. Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston is one of the few high level Representatives of the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. who have been asked to step down, and then it was only as a last resort, coming very late in the revelations in the Archdiocese of Boston.
This makes me all the more concerned about the recent change of heart by Pope Benedict, himself. It is well known that, since becoming Pope, he has taken steps to oust several leading prelates, who formerly had the protection of people on high at the Vatican, even when one of the abusers had clearly fathered a child.
I commend Pope Benedict for his serious approach toward routing out all of the sinful, sexual abusers from the church. I,only, wish he was nearly as serious about holding responsible the bishops and cardinals who for so many years ignored this problem and defended their abusing priests, moving them from parish to parish until, finally, the abuses for which these wayward priests had long been responsible caused them to be relieved of their duties.
The leaders of the church took these actions, knowing of the nature of the offenses for which their priests had been accused, however they treated them as minor and tried to protect their priests, rather than the victims of this priestly abuse. They too, should be held responsible for their failure to act properly in these many cases,instead of merely going along in a passive way until circumstances forced them to remove the accused priest from his priestly duties. entirely.
On the day that Pope Benedict deals as seriously with the Cardinals and Bishops who owe their allegiance to him, meting out punishments where necessary, and asking for resignations where that would be appropriate, I will truly commend him for his handling of the total sex abuse scandal throughout the Roman Catholic Church.
I have no problem with a
I have no problem with a priest being involved in a consenting relationship with a women - that is healthy and natural, while I know they are breaking there vow of celibacy, it is understandable.
However, the abuse of innocent children, many in the care of the church, and the the homosexual contacts of priests is not acceptable. I cannot understand how a priest can be involved in these activities and then offer Mass. I do not understand how anybody who is attracted to children would not get help with their problem, how they would let it happen again and again. Once may be temptation, but anymore is abuse.
I think it is offensive to attach together pedophile and homosexual priests with those who are involved in a sexual or loving relationship with a women. Two wrongs do not make a right!!
Sandra it is this type of
Sandra it is this type of muddled thinking that has got us into this mess.
The Church's teaching is quite clear There is no such thing as a consenting relationship outside marriage.It is a sin.
Jesus promised His church would not teach lies.Every catholic is asked to live chastely outside marriage and even within marriage there must be respect for each other in the sexual partnership.
It is for this reason accusations that the Church has a special prejudice against same sex attracted priests is nonsense.The same ideal od chastity applies to us all regardless of our orientation.
A major problem facing the
A major problem facing the church is whether its bishops will say to themselves---"if HE can get away with it, why can't I" (or we since there's been wholesale collusion between dioceses, even countries. And a bishop in trouble can face Him down---"what do you mean, blaming me, I was only following your example".
"From the beginning, the "sex
"From the beginning, the "sex abuse crisis" has actually been an interlocking set of two problems: the abuse committed by some priests, and the administrative failures of some bishops who should have known better to deal with the problem. "
It is actually three problems, and no one seems to ackowledge the third. That is, since a priest is supposed to be "imago Christi," how can the Church EVER have considered that a child molester could be a priest? This is not merely an "administrative failure." That canon law did not require such men to be automatically laicized, speaks to deep problems in the very being of the Church.
Whatever the percentage of
Whatever the percentage of priests who have offended: be it 1.8% or 4% or 7%---60% of bishops knew about these offenders and moved them around, exposing more children to sexual assault at the hands of priests. The bishops need to be disciplined. And where ever you are the bishop in charge, you are responsible. This careerist nonsense as an excuse for Joseph Ratzinger's inattention is insulting and a very poor excuse for journalism.
Good even-handed story.
Good even-handed story. Thanks.
John, I've been following
John, I've been following your work for many years, full of gratitude for your insider reports from Rome and elsewhere. But today, I'm stunned to see so many comments by readers who are dissin' you for actions in Germany and Rome over which you have not one iota of responsibility or authority. Sono senza parole... coraggio!
The word is that someone
The word is that someone other than the pope was responsible for the abusive priest to remain in the ministry and that person has stepped down. I have two questions: #1 since this is such an important issue, why wasn't this concern brought directly to the pope's attention for his own response? #2 In regards to the person claiming responsibility for allowing the abusive priest to remain in the ministry not the pope, has stepped down. Please tell me, what does, he stepped down, mean? This sounds like a response you would get from a politician. It is very obvious that the pope is unable to do the right thing (which would be to get rid of every bishop that had anything to do with the movement of priests, protecting abusive priests, allowing priests to leave the ministry without having to register as sex offenders, plus using billions of dollars of church money to make financial settlements) because he is also involved. Would the pope like to make a response or will another bishop, archbishop or cardinal have to respond?
All religions will fall and
All religions will fall and only the pure word of God will be left standing. Scripture says, Those who are exalted shall be abased. It is not possible that a church that disregards the written word of God in the whole Bible should stand pure before man. Pope John Paul II reminded the church that they are the mother church to the Christian churches. The Christian and Catholic church cannot be justified by the word of God.
Jesus said to live by every word of God. All prophets have said to live by the law of God. Jesus said, "If they believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe though one rise from the dead." (Luke 16:31.) The primary message through Muhammad was to follow the whole Bible, not just part.
God commanded in Leviticus 23 certain holy days of no work and feast and in Deuteronomy 4:2 He says not to add to or diminish from them. This is a time for great correction, but the church from the ground up have ignored God's corrective word. March 29 sunset begins Passover. Exodus 12. God calls it a memorial forever. We can at least keep the days of no work and return to the 7th day Sabbath of no work for anyone recorded in the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20. Judgments always get more severe after holy days. Only a true church and its follower will stand.
When was Peter Hullermann
When was Peter Hullermann incardinated by the Archbishop of Munich as a priest of that diocese? The records should be available; such things are usually carried out via polite letters between the presiding bishop of former diocese and his counterpart in the receiving diocese. The sending bishop usually gives some account of the priest's character and recommends him to his brother bishop. There is then documentation formally produced authorizing the priest to administer the sacraments at the bishop's behest.
Such formalities are not mere formalities. They are rigorously observed and documented. A priest cannot validly administer sacraments without being incardinated by the bishop of the diocese in which he does so. He can be given temporary authorization, but even that is documented in writing.
Though the papers and correspondence might be prepared by staff, they are ultimately reviewed and signed by the bishop.
Therefore, if we are to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger had left Munich by the time Hullerman was placed into parish ministry in that archdiocese, it should be simple enough for that diocese to produce the original, verifiable, signed, documents surrounding his transfer from Essen and incardination in Munich.
Post new comment