Letter shows future Pope Benedict resisted defrocking molester priest

[Mrs_Sally]

Very interesting points.

I’ve noticed this before in a few cases, that the priest in question was actually turned in (by a parent, the church whoever) at the time and was not locked up with the key thrown away. So if the civil authorities didn’t see a case, and the priest acted repentant, I can see how the bishop might have also. Thoughts at the time about the recidivism rates were very different and the church is *supposed *to be forgiving.

Something smells very fishy here.

From what I understand the intervention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was not specifically called upon or required to reduce a priest to the laity. The requirements under Canon Law to try this sort of offense lay with the local bishop. Intervention from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith usually requires extraordinary circumstances, none of which are detailed in this article.

Also, this man apparently plead no-contest to trying up children and molesting them, according the AP report, but received probation from the government?

No, that doesn’t add up at all. There is a lot more to the particulars of this case than the reporters cared to research. The completely lack of inquiry into the circumstances behind such an outlandish judicial sentence leaves me skeptical in the extreme.

Moreover, defrocking a priest effectively “cuts him loose” from the Church. Since the State already let him off with probation, doesn’t that mean there would be nobody monitoring this guy or keeping him away from children? It appears that after he was kicked out of the priesthood he went on to molest more children and the government didn’t catch back up to him for 15 years.

At least while he was banned from ministry but still kept under the yoke of ordination he was monitored and wasn’t allowed access to children. If anything it appears that reducing this man to the laity actually enabled him to commit further acts of sexual abuse.

That’s really, really messed up.

• Marty Lund

 

[serrevin]

fair enough
if you can continue to read about and hear all of these issues and not see what’s going on I understand. i’m just trying to figure out why everyone is so quick to defend a person who is allowing the worst crime possible to continue. and in regard to the other poster talking about showing the other alter boys the ropes. did I catch that right? “this particular priest touches too much stay away from him”?
I mean, how common is this madness???

 

[Edwardjohn]

fair enough
if you can continue to read about and hear all of these issues and not see what’s going on I understand. i’m just trying to figure out why everyone is so quick to defend a person who is allowing the worst crime possible to continue. and in regard to the other poster talking about showing the other alter boys the ropes. did I catch that right? “this particular priest touches too much stay away from him”?
I mean, how common is this madness???

Probably about as common as it is in your denomination.

 

[serrevin]

well I don’t think we need to fight and get defensive,
I could simply point out that my denom doesn’t come close to begin to making the claims the RCC claims for itself, and my pastor doesn’t come close to the claims that the pope makes for himself.
but aside from all that, where is the outrage at the lives of the kids that are destroyed here? it seems the reaction on the board is the SAME EXACT REACTION of Rcc leadership when these issues were brought to them " Protect the church by protecting leadership"

that’s just the view from here.

 

[estesbob]

fair enough
if you can continue to read about and hear all of these issues and not see what’s going on I understand. i’m just trying to figure out why everyone is so quick to defend a person who is allowing the worst crime possible to continue. and in regard to the other poster talking about showing the other alter boys the ropes. did I catch that right? “this particular priest touches too much stay away from him”?
I mean, how common is this madness???

It is inexcusable the way the Bishops handled these cases back in the 60s. 70s and 80s. Fortunatley the Church has made great strides in correcting the problem. I believe the attempts to link Pope Benedict to this is lame at best. He was in charge of a office that had jurisdiction over more than 400,000 priests and more than a billion catholics. The Priest in question was removed from ministry and the only question in front of Cardinal Ratzinger’s office was whether he should be defrocked-which he ultimately was. Please note that there is absolutely NO allegations that he abused anyone after he was removed from his minsitry.

 

[mlund]

fair enough
if you can continue to read about and hear all of these issues and not see what’s going on I understand. i’m just trying to figure out why everyone is so quick to defend a person who is allowing the worst crime possible to continue.

You see, this betrays that you aren’t particularly familiar with the facts of the matter, or the statistics. You make accusations that Pope Benedict is “a person who is allowing the worst crime possible to continue,” without any facts to back them up.

The statistics speak to the contrary: the reforms that then-Cardinal Ratzinger worked on have helped contribute to the drastic drop in sexual abuse in Catholic institutions marked by the late 80s and early 90s through to the current day. Today the rate of abuse is next to nil.

Further the article in question provides no facts that suggest that then-Cardinal Ratzinger allowed sexual abuse to continue. The man was already removed from ministry and any contact with children - and rightly so. If anything the facts buried in the foolish narrative of the writer show us something very disturbing: the offender was convicted, but not removed from society by the Judicial System and when the Church cut him loose there was no one left to monitor his behavior and keep him from harming children - so he went on to harm more children.

• Marty Lund

 

[estesbob]

well I don’t think we need to fight and get defensive,
I could simply point out that my denom doesn’t come close to begin to making the claims the RCC claims for itself, and my pastor doesn’t come close to the claims that the pope makes for himself.
but aside from all that, where is the outrage at the lives of the kids that are destroyed here? it seems the reaction on the board is the SAME EXACT REACTION of Rcc leadership when these issues were brought to them " Protect the church by protecting leadership"

that’s just the view from here.

I totally agree with you. The Church should be held to a higher standard and the incindet of moestation in other deniminations and professions is irelevant. The Catholic Church is the Church Chirst founded and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. The excuse that everybody has the same problem" doesntt cut it.

 

[dmorgan]

C’mon people, wake up! Don’t you get it? The Holy Mother Church is at war with the powers and principalities of this world. Namely satan and his minions. This is going to get alot worse.
Pray! We are told the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but many will fall away before this is over. Pray for the Holy Father, Pray for Holy Mother Church!!!

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I am certainly not going to defend anyone who actually is (or was) abusing children. But this behavior happens across all denominations, walks of life, races, nations, etc. Thankfully it isn’t common, but I think most communities have a one or two. And yes, children used to be taught to just “stay way from Uncle Bob”, or never stay after school when teacher X was in charge, and even to serve Mass and then fly out of the sacristy. Was it wrong? Yes, but being aware probably saved many children from “too much touching” and more.

I am very glad that we treat this whole sickness very differently now. But it doesn’t do any good to pretend that people in the past had the information we do now. And it certianly isn’t helpful to act like this is a problem confined only to Catholic priests, or that all priests would ‘touch too much’ if only they had the opportunity.

It is a time for prayer and fasting.

fair enough
if you can continue to read about and hear all of these issues and not see what’s going on I understand. i’m just trying to figure out why everyone is so quick to defend a person who is allowing the worst crime possible to continue. and in regard to the other poster talking about showing the other alter boys the ropes. did I catch that right? “this particular priest touches too much stay away from him”?
I mean, how common is this madness???

 

[serrevin]

the “we didn’t have access to the info in the 60’s 70’s and 80’s” argument that I hear every time another one of these cases pops up where a guy who abused dozens and sometimes hundreds of kids is beyond me. what did we suddenly learn in the 90’s that was so different? if this individual had tied up two adult women and put his hands on them i’m sure his holiness would have been educated enough to take care of business. that’s truly the lamest excuse for all of this. especially when it comes to ratzinger, he was/is one of the most brilliant, articulate, (and clearly) SHREWD individuals IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. to say he didn’t know what should have been done in these cases is simply naive. according to what he wrote in the letter what took priority was the good of the universal church. which trumps the good of these kids.
this seems beyond deniable to me, what more evidence can be shown to prove otherwise?

 

[whm]

well I don’t think we need to fight and get defensive,
I could simply point out that my denom doesn’t come close to begin to making the claims the RCC claims for itself, and my pastor doesn’t come close to the claims that the pope makes for himself.
but aside from all that, where is the outrage at the lives of the kids that are destroyed here? it seems the reaction on the board is the SAME EXACT REACTION of Rcc leadership when these issues were brought to them " Protect the church by protecting leadership"

that’s just the view from here.

The reaction on this board is due to many false, inaccurate, maliciously misleading media reports and posts that propagate the inaccuracies. There are a few athiests and aniti-catholics (not implying you are one) sprinkled in that seem to enjoy all of this too, which is a little irritating.

We are all very outraged!! by the abuse. If we didn’t have to spend so much time correcting inaccuracies, there would be more posts to make that evident.

BTW I fear that other christian churches and other religions are going to be treated in the same manor in due time.

 

[Onyx88]

Plugs Ears

La-La-La-La-La-La-La-La

Rationalization is a powerful tool.

I agree the media is a frothy mess right now. But the Vatican basically confirmed the letter. How you can hide from that, I have no idea.

I think all its shows is that, even after being convicted of tying up and molesting (raping? not sure) a child, Benedict appears to show as much, if not more concern for the image of the Church, even as the bishop in charge of this predatory priest recommends firing. At best, it looks like very questionable priorities.

Unless of course you think its all a big scam. Which I can not help you with.

 

[whm]

C’mon people, wake up! Don’t you get it? The Holy Mother Church is at war with the powers and principalities of this world. Namely satan and his minions. This is going to get alot worse.
Pray! We are told the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but many will fall away before this is over. Pray for the Holy Father, Pray for Holy Mother Church!!!

From without and some within - I do get it.

 

[estesbob]

the “we didn’t have access to the info in the 60’s 70’s and 80’s” argument that I hear every time another one of these cases pops up where a guy who abused dozens and sometimes hundreds of kids is beyond me. what did we suddenly learn in the 90’s that was so different? if this individual had tied up two adult women and put his hands on them i’m sure his holiness would have been educated enough to take care of business. that’s truly the lamest excuse for all of this. especially when it comes to ratzinger, he was/is one of the most brilliant, articulate, (and clearly) SHREWD individuals IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. to say he didn’t know what should have been done in these cases is simply naive. according to what he wrote in the letter what took priority was the good of the universal church. which trumps the good of these kids.
this seems beyond deniable to me, what more evidence can be shown to prove otherwise?

The problem in the 60s, 70s and early 80s was the beleif that such people could be “curedf” We know now that is not true. Nothing can be done to undo what happened in the past but the Church has taken steps to make sure it does not happen again. Can they assure that no Priest will ever molest a young man again-of course not-but the treatment of those caught doing so is quick and certain now-a far cry from the way oit was handled decades ago. I think all denominations should model their handling these issues the way the Church does now-we learned the hard way.

 

[Onyx88]

Onyx88:
i too think it looks questionble .

 

[Onyx88]

Plugs Ears

La-La-La-La-La-La-La-La

Rationalization is a powerful tool.

I agree the media is a frothy mess right now. But the Vatican basically confirmed the letter. How you can hide from that, I have no idea.

I think all its shows is that, even after being convicted of tying up and molesting (raping? not sure) a child, Benedict appears to show as much, if not more concern for the image of the Church, even as the bishop in charge of this predatory priest recommends firing. At best, it looks like very questionable priorities.

i too think it looks questionable
Unless of course you think its all a big scam. Which I can not help you with.

 

[mlund]

double post

 

[Verbum_Caro]

well,
it’s obvious to anyone from the outside looking in what’s going on.

serrevin,

I do think it is obvious, but not in the way you mean. I think what is obvious is all the misinformation that is getting pumped out by the media (and their cohorts) and accepted uncritically by otherwise thoughtful men and women.

For instance you said that

what is the headcount of children that ratzinger turned a blind eye to? 200 at the deaf boys school

Did Cardinal Ratzinger turn a blind eye to that? First, I’m not sure if we know how much contact the Cardinal himself had with the case, but I understand that as the head of the CDF you could hold him co-responsible. But – My understanding is that it the case was brought to the police who didn’t press charges, it happened 20 years before it was brought to Vatican’s attention, and the statute of limitations had run out by then. The only avenue open at that time was to bring everyone into a proceeding to have the priest removed from the clerical state. I don’t think he was in active ministry at the time. And, this wouldn’t be about what happened at the School for the Deaf in general, but only over solicitation in the confessional. The CDF didn’t have jurisdiction over the sexual abuse allegations at that time.

And, even what they did have jurisdiction over (solicitation) was also barred by the statue of limitations.

But the CDF waived that statute and said to begin prosecuting.

VC

 

[Outraged]

I dont think the Vatican is denying the legitimacy of the letter. I dont see the supposed great scandal of this letter. He delayed defrocking a Priest. He counsleled compassion and understanding. There is NO evidence that this Priest molested any more young men.

Did you actually read the article? “He pleaded no contest in 2004 to a felony for molesting a young girl in his Truckee home in 1995 and was sentenced to six years in state prison.” OK, so maybe it’s not “young men” but it is continued predator behavior.

The guy tied up and molested two young boys. Which he himself pleaded no contest to! Why in the world would you need a second offense to defrock him?? There are some offenses that may deserve a second chance, but no way in hell molesting a child is one of them!

It is inexcusable the way the Bishops handled these cases back in the 60s. 70s and 80s. Fortunatley the Church has made great strides in correcting the problem.

If this is true then why did the church allow a priest who was charged with criminal sexual conduct in 2007 to remain in India for three years before agreeing to his extradition to face the charges? I’m not saying the priest is guilt. Only a court of law can do that. But the church didn’t lift a finger to at least make him return to the US and face charges until the media broke the story.

The church has a long way to go before you can claim “great strides”!

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Dear Sir, I am glad to hear that your studio audience disapproves of the last skit as strongly as I. As a naval officer I abhor the implication that the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we now have the problem relatively under control, and that it is the RAF who now suffer the largest casualties in this area. And what do you think the Argylls ate in Aden. Arabs? Yours etc. Captain B.J. Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.

• orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/lifeboat.htm

No further comment needed.