New story trying to implicate Pope Benedict is "misleading" says the Vatican [CNA]

[CNA_News]

Vatican City, Apr 3, 2010 / 12:40 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Vatican Press Office Director, Fr Federico Lombardi, has issued a statement regarding a story released on Holy Saturday by the Associated Press as a “breaking news,” implying that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, failed to act promptly in the case of Rev. Michael Teta of the Diocese of Tucson, Arizona.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/31pYA1xpcmw

Full article…

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The guy wasn’t laicized until 12 years after his conviction by Church tribunal. Ratzinger took responsibility for the case after the conviction and, yes, it did fall under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith because he was convicted of molesting children in a confessional (in preparation for their first communion no less!). Clearly, someone took their sweet time despite pleas from the Bishop to expedite the process. If not Ratzinger then who?

 

[momor]

Did anyone else catch this paragraph in the article? Presumably this statement, although not attributed to any person, comes from the Vatican press office.

**The AP story also misses the fact that it was then Tucson Bishop Manuel D. Moreno who failed to notify police about allegations against Teta and another Tucson abusive priest, Robert Trupia until 2000, when the US bishops adopted mandatory reporting policies.

And there was an earlier article by the Catholic League (posted in another thread) in which it shows this same strategy of blaming the bishop was employed by Cardinal Levada (admittedly not the point of the article).
catholicleague.com/release.php?id=1818

From the article by Bill Donohue:
**Cardinal Levada directly takes on the New York Times for its coverage of the Fr. Murphy abuse case in Wisconsin. Commenting on the news story by Laurie Goodstein, Levada writes, “The point of Goodstein’s article, however, is to attribute the failure to accomplish this dismissal [of Fr. Murphy] to Pope Benedict, instead of to diocesan decisions at the time.”

Cardinal Levada has it just right. The wrongdoing in this case rests in Wisconsin. Why did the victims’ families wait as long as 15 years to report the abuse? Why were the civil authorities unconvinced by what they uncovered? Why did Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland wait almost two decades before he contacted the Vatican?**

Is this really going to be a strategy of Vatican officials now - to blame the US bishops? I have long felt (perhaps incorrectly) that the Vatican saw the abuse scandal as mostly an American problem and I felt abandoned as we saw it unfold with no response or support for the laity from the Vatican. I can’t help but feel this blame game may be an outgrowth of that attitude.

And as a result of his comments, Cardinal Levada, himself a former US bishop, is now the target of the media. What goes around comes around?
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100403/ap_on_re_us/us_church_abuse_levada

From the article:
***The deposition was released by Erin Olson, another attorney who represented abuse victims in the Oregon lawsuit and who was instrumental in getting the testimony from Levada. Olson said parts of the deposition were redacted that made reference to three individuals involved in pending litigation.

Olson said she decided to release it because she was angry over Levada’s defense of the way the Vatican handled a Wisconsin priest accused of molesting as many as 200 deaf boys.*

 

[JReducation]

You must also post from the article that Cardinal Levada took all the right moves and there there were no problems with the priest from that time forward. The Cardinal admits how he managed the situation and he stands my his decisions, because they worked.

It’s not what goes around comes around. It is not fair to post the one side without the Cardinal’s side, which is also found in the article.

Finally, the case which is attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger was not in his hands. It was in the hands of the Congregation for the Clergy. It reaches his hands years later when the protocol are changed. The fact that the Prefect receives a case and signs that he has received it, does not mean that he handles the case. There are hundreds of thousands of issues, documents, questons and points of doctrine that come through the Sacred Congregation for the Faith each year. They take long to resolve and one person cannot do it all. Look at the case with the SSPX, no one predicts to see any resolution for at least two years. That’s a much easier case by comparison.

What I’m trying to say is that the Prefect may receive something, but he is not the one who handles it. That’s why he has a staff. Like any other organization, every person is responsible for doing their job. If one person is slow or drops the ball, unless the boss knows about it, you can’t blame him. The argument that is being used is that because Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the Sacred Congregation, he should have known about the status of everything that goes on in that office. That’s not humanly possible. That’s like asking the Chief of Staff at the White House to know what everyone in the White House is doing at any given time and how things are going. He knows what is reported to him or what he may stumble upon. But these folks do not have a crystal ball to see every detail when there are thousands of details.

Granted, the volume of the work that goes through that particular office slows things down, it has been much more effective since Cardinal Ratzinger took over the priest abuse scandals than was the Congregation for the Clergy. The Congregation for the Clergy is responsible for dealing with every priest in the Church, not just the miscreants. That takes even more time. This was the faster way, to separate the sexual abuseers and give them over the Cardinal Ratzinger’s office, not expecting the Cardinal to intervene himself. That was not the expectation. Each case is assigned to someone who has knowledge and experience in that area. Cardinal Ratzinger is not a canon lawyer, not was he the pope who can make law. It stands to reason that these cases were assigned to jurists on the staff.

That’s what the Church is saying that is missing in these news reports. No one denies that the abuses took place. The point is that the reports do not mention the complexity of the job and how the Congregations work or that the Prefects accept cases, but they do not handle them pesonally. They can’t handle every case.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Fink]

The guy wasn’t laicized until 12 years after his conviction by Church tribunal. Ratzinger took responsibility for the case after the conviction and, yes, it did fall under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith because he was convicted of molesting children in a confessional (in preparation for their first communion no less!). Clearly, someone took their sweet time despite pleas from the Bishop to expedite the process. If not Ratzinger then who?

CCCC

 

[momor]

You must also post from the article that Cardinal Levada took all the right moves and there there were no problems with the priest from that time forward. The Cardinal admits how he managed the situation and he stands my his decisions, because they worked.

The article link was posted and that information was there for anyone to read. However, given what we know today about recidivism was he merely lucky that Baccillieri happened to be one of the ones that did not re-offend? Should the parish to which he was assigned have been informed just to be sure that all benefit of the doubt rested with them rather than with the offender?

In another article on the subject it

Finally, the case which is attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger was not in his hands. It was in the hands of the Congregation for the Clergy. It reaches his hands years later when the protocol are changed.

**I don’t think this is correct. It was referred to Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF in the 1990s because the abuse involved the confessional. Not that I am saying he didn’t do his job. But the article cites letters to him from Bishop Moreno implying he was not getting the help he needed. And Bishop Moreno is now being “blamed” by the Vatican for not reporting the priest to the authorities until the US bishops changed their policies.

All I am saying is that I am dismayed at this tack that the Vatican seems to be taking. I think it could and will backfire. **

 

[JReducation]

The article link was posted and that information was there for anyone to read. However, given what we know today about recidivism was he merely lucky that Baccillieri happened to be one of the ones that did not re-offend? Should the parish to which he was assigned have been informed just to be sure that all benefit of the doubt rested with them rather than with the offender?

The Cardinal said that he did what he thought was best. He makes no apologies for it. People want the truth. He’s telling the truth and people want more. He did inform the pastor the background of the priest and the conditions that had to be observed. He is not allowed to share with this with the congregation, if that’s what you mean by sharing it with the parish. The moral law is very clear that you do not share matters of conscience with the public. This applies to the Cardinal and to you and me. You may only share something like this if and when the need arises. That’s an infallible moral teaching that we cannot deny or change. Obviously, if it’s a matter of the confessional, you can’t even share it with those who need to know. But the Cardinal explained in the article the systems that he put into place to minimize the possibility of repetition.

In another article on the subject it

Finally, the case which is attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger was not in his hands. It was in the hands of the Congregation for the Clergy. It reaches his hands years later when the protocol are changed.

**I don’t think this is correct. It was referred to Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF in the 1990s because the abuse involved the confessional. Not that I am saying he didn’t do his job. But the article cites letters to him from Bishop Moreno implying he was not getting the help he needed. And Bishop Moreno is now being “blamed” by the Vatican for not reporting the priest to the authorities until the US bishops changed their policies. **

This is what the CDF is saying is inaccurate. The dates are wrong. It reached the Congregation of the Faith later. They are not blaiming bishop Moreno for hiding the facts. What they are saying is that Bishop Moreno did not report this to the Congregation of the Faith, but to the Congregation for the Clergy. He did write several requests for help. It was finally, after the protocol was changed that Bishop Moreno writes to the CDF. It’s not a blame, it is simmply stating the sequence of events. Bishop Moreno did the right thing. He had suspended the priest and was awaiting further directions.

All I am saying is that I am dismayed at this tack that the Vatican seems to be taking. I think it could and will backfire.

I don’t understand why some Catholics seem to be having such a difficult time with the simple fact that the Vatican does not operate the way that other organizations do. Things often take very long. Reports and letters end up in the wrong offices or departments. Many questions do not have simple answers because there are many laws that have to be considered or there are many documents that have to be carefully examined. If there is one thing that we can say about the Church is that it is very thorough in the manner that it investigates.

I don’t feel so negative as many people do. As I keep saying, everytime we have had a crisis of this kind, there have always arisen great and sainlty reformers who have saved the Church. We’re going to see this again this time. In the meantime, we have to start cleaning up the mess so that the reformers have soemthing to work with.

Tonight, after the Easter Vigil, I came out with great hope. I volunteer at a parish and we (the brothers) went there for the Vigil. They received 60 people into the Church. They have 12 masses this weekend in a church that sits 800. Tonight’s Vigil had over 1,000 people attending. The reason is that the people are seeing a parish that has five secular priests, four secular deacons, and three Franciscan brothers. What they see is fidelity.

My community runs another parish in town. In that parish we have one ordained brother and six lay brothers. They had a full house for every liturgy during the Triduum and they have seven masses this weekend. They only have one priest. They’re going to borrow priests from their neighboring parishes and a few retired priests that live in the neighborhood. That parish is run by lay brothers. One lay brother is the superior, the other is the vicar and the ordained brother is the parrochial vicar, not a pastor, because he can’t be a pastor, since he’s not a superior. But the people go because they see fidelity

We have to look around us at what we see in our parishes, missions, hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, nursing homes and on the streets. We will see thousands of priests, brothers and sisters who are faithful. We will see hundreds of thousands of lay Catholics serving youth, sick, elderly, pro-life ministry and more.

If we only read the papers, we run the risk of falling into depair. We can’t stick our heads in the sand. We have to admit the failures that have to be addressed. But we have to see the holiness that out numbers the failures.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Peggy Noonan, a writer and journalist who is very familiar with the inner workings of the Vatican wrote the most objective article that I have seen on this subject. She wrote it for the Wall Street Journal. Check it out. It’s worth reading.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303960604575158310656792820.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SunnaB16]

The guy wasn’t laicized until 12 years after his conviction by Church tribunal. Ratzinger took responsibility for the case after the conviction and, yes, it did fall under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith because he was convicted of molesting children in a confessional (in preparation for their first communion no less!). Clearly, someone took their sweet time despite pleas from the Bishop to expedite the process. If not Ratzinger then who?

i was just about to put a reply on that thread that you started; the one titled: “Vatican waited years…”, but, as you know, it vanished.
You and the other vulture might have to look elsewhere for blood.
You don`t even have the decency to say: “Joseph” or “Cardinal”; just “Ratzinger”.

 

[kepha1]

The Cardinal said that he did what he thought was best. He makes no apologies for it. People want the truth. He’s telling the truth and people want more. He did inform the pastor the background of the priest and the conditions that had to be observed. He is not allowed to share with this with the congregation, if that’s what you mean by sharing it with the parish. The moral law is very clear that you do not share matters of conscience with the public. This applies to the Cardinal and to you and me. You may only share something like this if and when the need arises. That’s an infallible moral teaching that we cannot deny or change. Obviously, if it’s a matter of the confessional, you can’t even share it with those who need to know. But the Cardinal explained in the article the systems that he put into place to minimize the possibility of repetition.

This is what the CDF is saying is inaccurate. The dates are wrong. It reached the Congregation of the Faith later. They are not blaiming bishop Moreno for hiding the facts. What they are saying is that Bishop Moreno did not report this to the Congregation of the Faith, but to the Congregation for the Clergy. He did write several requests for help. It was finally, after the protocol was changed that Bishop Moreno writes to the CDF. It’s not a blame, it is simmply stating the sequence of events. Bishop Moreno did the right thing. He had suspended the priest and was awaiting further directions.

I don’t understand why some Catholics seem to be having such a difficult time with the simple fact that the Vatican does not operate the way that other organizations do. Things often take very long. Reports and letters end up in the wrong offices or departments. Many questions do not have simple answers because there are many laws that have to be considered or there are many documents that have to be carefully examined. If there is one thing that we can say about the Church is that it is very thorough in the manner that it investigates.

I don’t feel so negative as many people do. As I keep saying, everytime we have had a crisis of this kind, there have always arisen great and sainlty reformers who have saved the Church. We’re going to see this again this time. In the meantime, we have to start cleaning up the mess so that the reformers have soemthing to work with.

Tonight, after the Easter Vigil, I came out with great hope. I volunteer at a parish and we (the brothers) went there for the Vigil. They received 60 people into the Church. They have 12 masses this weekend in a church that sits 800. Tonight’s Vigil had over 1,000 people attending. The reason is that the people are seeing a parish that has five secular priests, four secular deacons, and three Franciscan brothers. What they see is fidelity.

My community runs another parish in town. In that parish we have one ordained brother and six lay brothers. They had a full house for every liturgy during the Triduum and they have seven masses this weekend. They only have one priest. They’re going to borrow priests from their neighboring parishes and a few retired priests that live in the neighborhood. That parish is run by lay brothers. One lay brother is the superior, the other is the vicar and the ordained brother is the parrochial vicar, not a pastor, because he can’t be a pastor, since he’s not a superior. But the people go because they see fidelity

We have to look around us at what we see in our parishes, missions, hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, nursing homes and on the streets. We will see thousands of priests, brothers and sisters who are faithful. We will see hundreds of thousands of lay Catholics serving youth, sick, elderly, pro-life ministry and more.

If we only read the papers, we run the risk of falling into depair. We can’t stick our heads in the sand. We have to admit the failures that have to be addressed. But we have to see the holiness that out numbers the failures.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well said. Very refreshing.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Finally, the case which is attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger was not in his hands. It was in the hands of the Congregation for the Clergy. It reaches his hands years later when the protocol are changed.

I don’t believe that and neither should you. He was found guilty of the crime of soliciation which means, as the doccumentation shows, that the case would have gone driectly to the Congregation for the Faith.

Look at the case with the SSPX, no one predicts to see any resolution for at least two years. That’s a much easier case by comparison.

One year, two years, three years…maybe but twelve years??

What I’m trying to say is that the Prefect may receive something, but he is not the one who handles it.

And this is one of the biggest problems with the scandal; a complete lack of accountability. What purpose do these offices serve if, as their defenders claim, they hand everything off to some underling and are completely ignorant of everything that goes on in their jurisdiction? We already know that Ratzinger knew about this case, as he took responsibility for it in a signed letter, and that he received numerous letters urging him to expedite the case.