Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis
**1. Not the ‘Point Man’**First, some media reports have suggested that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger presided over the Vatican office with responsibility for the sex abuse crisis for almost a quarter-century, from 1981 until his election to the papacy in April 2005, and therefore that he’s responsible for whatever the Vatican did or didn’t do during that entire stretch of time. That’s not correct.
In truth, Ratzinger did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001, four years before he became pope.
Prior to 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith got involved only in the exceedingly rare instances when the sex abuse occurred in the context of the confessional, since a canonical tribunal within the congregation handled cases involving abuse of the sacrament of penance. That, for example, is how the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, ended up in the congregation, and it’s also why officials in the Milwaukee archdiocese directed the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy there.
One certainly can question how Ratzinger’s office handled those exceptional cases, and the record seems painfully slow and ambivalent in comparison with how similar accusations would be dealt with today. Moreover, Ratzinger was a senior Vatican official from 1981 forward, and therefore he shares in the corporate failure in Rome to appreciate the magnitude of the crisis until terribly late in the game.
2. The 2001 letter
In some reporting and commentary, a May 2001 letter from Ratzinger to the bishops of the world, titled De delictis gravioribus, is being touted as a “smoking gun” proving that Ratzinger attempted to thwart reporting priestly sex abuse to the police or other civil authorities by ordering the bishops to keep it secret.
That aside, here’s the key point about Ratzinger’s 2001 letter: Far from being seen as part of the problem, at the time it was widely hailed as a watershed moment towards a solution. It marked recognition in Rome, really for the first time, of how serious the problem of sex abuse really is, and it committed the Vatican to getting directly involved. Prior to that 2001 motu proprio and Ratzinger’s letter, it wasn’t clear that anyone in Rome acknowledged responsibility for managing the crisis; from that moment forward, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would play the lead role.
Beginning in 2001, Ratzinger was forced to review all the files on every priest credibly accused of sexual abuse anywhere in the world, giving him a sense of the contours of the problem that virtually no one else in the Catholic church can claim. In a recent article, I outlined the “conversion experience” Ratzinger and his staff went through after 2001. Beforehand, he came off as just another Roman cardinal in denial; after his experience of reviewing the files, he began to talk openly about the “filth” in the church, and his staff became far more energetic about prosecuting abusers.
** 3. Canonical Trials**
Ratzinger’s top deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on sex abuse cases, Maltese Monsignor Charles Scicluna, recently gave an interview to an Italian Catholic paper in which he said that of the more than 3,000 cases eventually referred to Rome, only 20 percent were subjected to a full canonical trial. In some reporting, including the Thursday piece in The New York Times, this figure has been cited as evidence of Vatican “inaction.”
Back in June 2002, when the American bishops first proposed a set of new canonical norms to Rome, the heart of which was the “one strike and you’re out” policy, they initially wanted to avoid canonical trials altogether. Instead, they wanted to rely on a bishop’s administrative power to permanently remove a priest from ministry.
When the new American norms reached Rome, they ran into opposition precisely on the grounds that everyone deserves their day in court – another instance, in the eyes of critics, of the Vatican being more concerned about the rights of abuser priests than victims. A special commission of American bishops and senior Vatican officials brokered a compromise, in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would sort through the cases one-by-one and decide which ones would be sent back for full trials.
Sorry for the long quotes but I wanted to include all the main points.Hence to describe that 20 percent figure as a sign of “inaction” cannot help but seem, to anyone who’s been paying attention, rather ironic. In truth, handling 60 percent of the cases through the stroke of a bishop’s pen has, up to now, more often been cited as evidence of exaggerated and draconian action by Ratzinger and his deputies.
Obviously, none of this is to suggest that Benedict’s handling of the crisis – in Munich, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or as pope – is somehow exemplary. An accounting needs to be offered if this pope, and the church he leads, hopes to move forward. For that analysis to be constructive, however, as opposed to fueling polarization and confusion, it’s important to keep the record straight.
I excerpted that part of the quoted report because it shows how far removed Rome was from the reality of the problem. Why didn’t they know this 20 years earlier, or 40 years earlier, or 60 years earlier?It marked recognition in Rome, really for the first time, of how serious the problem of sex abuse really is, and it committed the Vatican to getting directly involved. Prior to that 2001 *motu proprio *and Ratzinger’s letter, it wasn’t clear that anyone in Rome acknowledged responsibility for managing the crisis; from that moment forward, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would play the lead role.
My sister in Jesus Joan,Not that we have any excuse for one act of abuse but it seems to me that, number 1, we must have an army of haters with a fulltime job scrounging up dirt to embarrass us and, number 2, that the secular press (such as my local paper, the Seattle Times) is willing to devote a full page (with pictures) to speculation passed off as fact whenever they think they have anything on us.
If any other religion or special interest group got this kind of treatment we’d hear bleeping and bawling on the evening news for months.
Are those who abused small children as evil as those you attack? What about those who were the enablers for the evildoers and who refused to apply the Gospel of Jesus toward the victims of abuse? How evil were they? How much truth was within them?Jesus taught us about these evil haters; "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. " (Jn 8:44)
Only God knows.Are those who abused small children as evil as those you attack? What about those who were the enablers for the evildoers and who refused to apply the Gospel of Jesus toward the victims of abuse? How evil were they? How much truth was within them?
I suspect that it was common knowledge among the Catholic clergy and religious throughout the church that there was abuse. It certainly was among the laity. But no one wanted to bring it up because of ‘scandal’ and ‘your word against his’ and ‘you tempted him–it was your fault’ and how could you say that about just a saintly priest’, etc. etc.I excerpted that part of the quoted report because it shows how far removed Rome was from the reality of the problem. Why didn’t they know this 20 years earlier, or 40 years earlier, or 60 years earlier?
Or were they aware of the problem before 2001 but refused to deal with it in a positive way? There must have been a lot of heads stuck in the sand in Rome for a long, long time.
Only God may know, but a bunch of people in Europe and especially Germany are going to do their best to find out.Only God knows.
Well and good. I’m sure in seeking they will find the truth. What I am not sure about is whether or not they will have the courage of conviction to bear witness to the truth, though I hope they do.Only God may know, but a bunch of people in Europe and especially Germany are going to do their best to find out.
Lots of people, including Catholics have this picture of the Church like the monolith from 2001 where everything is directly wired to Rome and the Pope has to express his wish and all his minions click their heels and salute, “Zu befehl, mein Fuhrer!”I excerpted that part of the quoted report because it shows how far removed Rome was from the reality of the problem. Why didn’t they know this 20 years earlier, or 40 years earlier, or 60 years earlier?
Or were they aware of the problem before 2001 but refused to deal with it in a positive way? There must have been a lot of heads stuck in the sand in Rome for a long, long time.