NYTimes: Fahr and Benedict.

  • Thread starter Thread starter landgazr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

landgazr

Guest
I am so troubled as a Catholic right now.

Law. Gruber. And now this:

nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html

Considering the willingness of everyone around him to fall on their swords, and the memos and meetings, what am I supposed to think?

I know that Hullermann wasn’t Benedict’s priest. I know that pedophilia was seen as “curable.” And I know Benedict wasn’t the one to return Hullermann to ministry.

But he knew. And that shakes me.

I am tired of the stone-walling, “insider speak,” denials and double talk. I am tired of the SECRETS.

Law is now an Archpriest in the Roman Curia. Hullermann was only suspended THIS MONTH.

Germany. Ireland. The US. Phillippines.

ALL of this. Buried. Hushed.

How corrupt is my Church? How far will this go? How many more secrets?

I fear what I said to my wife earlier is a sin but I can’t deny what I feel:

The Pontiff is guilty of moral laxity if not outright cowardice. And he is my Pope.

I feel I am at the brink of a personal, spiritual crisis.
 
Read the other articles on the Catholic News section:

Regarding Hullerman, the Catholic League made a response against the charges made by the Times:

*Catholic League president Bill Donohue addresses today’s New York Times news story on the pope:

“Pope Was Told Pedophile Priest Would Get Transfer.” That’s the headline in today’s New York Times piece on the pope. Yet the Times offers absolutely no evidence to support this charge. All it says is that his office “was copied on a memo” about the transfer of Peter Hullermann. According to Church officials, the story says the memo was routine and was “unlikely to have landed on the archbishop’s desk.”

Let’s say Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope, did in fact learn of the transfer. So what? Wasn’t that what he expected to happen? After all, we know from a March 16 Times story that when Ratzinger’s subordinates recommended therapy for Hullermann, he approved it. That was the drill of the day: after being treated, the patient (I prefer the term offender) returns to work. It’s still the drill of the day in many secular quarters today, particularly in the public schools. A more hard-line approach, obviously, makes more sense, but the therapeutic industry is very powerful.

In other words, there is no real news in today’s news story. So why print it? To keep the flame alive. Look for the Times to run another story saying they have proof Ratzinger knew of the transfer. Did they think that after he approved the therapy that Hullermann would be sent to the Gulag?

Yesterday’s Times story on the half-century old case concerning Father Lawrence Murphy will be the subject of an op-ed page ad in Tuesday’s New York Times. Meanwhile, I am taking advantage of every TV opportunity to set the record straight. The pope is a great man, and the Catholic League is proud to stand by him.
*

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1811
 
Don’t lose heart, and don’t let slanted reporting cloud the facts for you either.

One of the Archbishop Ratzinger’s 400+ paid employees received a request for a priest diagnosed as a mentally ill alcoholic to be transferred to a Munich rectory so he could be treated by a nearby medical facility. A memo crossed his desk about the priest in question and he was admitted to the rectory to receive medical treatment.

The priest in question was guilty, but the families of the 3 abused children in question refused to report the abuse to the police. They feared public exposure and humiliation of their children. Moreover the public justice system of the time in Germany simply remanded offenders diagnosed as mentally ill into medical institutions at the advice of the medical community - just like the Church did.

Subordinates in the Archdiocese thought the priest could be “cured” of his “mental illness” and rendered harmless to others with psychiatric care. They were mislead at best and likely negligent or incompetent. It was wrong but it happened at a time where people were very confused about mental illness and therapy.

I think it speaks volumes that as Cardinal Ratzinger lead numerous of reforms to clarify and strengthen protocols for reporting sexual abuse by the clergy to civil authorities - even before the public scandals broke.
  • Marty Lund
 
landgazr said:
I am so troubled as a Catholic right now.

Law. Gruber. And now this:

nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html

Considering the willingness of everyone around him to fall on their swords, and the memos and meetings, what am I supposed to think?

I know that Hullermann wasn’t Benedict’s priest. I know that pedophilia was seen as “curable.” And I know Benedict wasn’t the one to return Hullermann to ministry.

But he knew. And that shakes me.

I am tired of the stone-walling, “insider speak,” denials and double talk. I am tired of the SECRETS.

Law is now an Archpriest in the Roman Curia. Hullermann was only suspended THIS MONTH.

Germany. Ireland. The US. Phillippines.

ALL of this. Buried. Hushed.

How corrupt is my Church? How far will this go? How many more secrets?

I fear what I said to my wife earlier is a sin but I can’t deny what I feel:

The Pontiff is guilty of moral laxity if not outright cowardice. And he is my Pope.

I feel I am at the brink of a personal, spiritual crisis.
Click to expand...
Wiki link to sex abuse by country.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country
 
lemonbeam and mlund - Thanks for all the information. Regarding the first post, I agree with everything Donohue said.

But I still cannot reconcile two things, explained below. I am not trying to be argumentative or a troll!

I need answers.

I need to pray.

I need to know that, as a whole, my Church is not rotting from within because of secrets!

And it is so distressing to say that!!

What I have trouble with are the multiple points of contact that Benedict had with the case: the memo, Fahr, the conversations, the meeting. I haven’t been able to discount them all.

For me, my turmoil stems from the conclusion I am drawing so far: that Benedict knew not only of Hullermann’s history but his continued ministry among children.

But there is no smoking gun. Indeed I don’t WANT to find a smoking gun. Given Benedict’s charge, it is also likely that Benedict had no direct role in putting Hullermann back on duty. Indeed, given Benedict’s responsibilities at the time, he may not have even seen a routine memo. And given the view of the sickness in those days (including by German authorities), I can see why he wasn’t simply defrocked.

All of that isn’t what bothers me. It is the picture that is painted by these two questions that haven’t been satisfactorily answered for me:
  1. The psychiatrist (Huth) treating Hullermann likely had no direct contact with Benedict but did with senior officials. Why didn’t this doctor’s pleas make it up the chain? At the very least, why didn’t those who DID know remove him from ministering to kids?
  2. Benedict’s subordinates knew it all, from what I’ve seen of the communications between Munich and Essen. Benedict was close to his subordinates. So how could Benedict NOT know not only about Hullermann staying in a rectory, but also of his abuse and his continued exposure to children?
At the very least, my heart is burdened by this cancer with my Church.
 
**Come on people! Wake up!!

Who should you believe, duh… The NY Times or the Pope??? (i am truly saddened by the fact that i even have to ask this question)

We all need to fall on our knees & pray to our only Hope, Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior, & whisper “MERCY!”**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
landgazr said:
lAll of that isn’t what bothers me. It is the picture that is painted by these two questions that haven’t been satisfactorily answered for me:
  1. The psychiatrist (Huth) treating Hullermann likely had no direct contact with Benedict but did with senior officials. Why didn’t this doctor’s pleas make it up the chain? At the very least, why didn’t those who DID know remove him from ministering to kids?
Click to expand...
A combination of the limitations of bureaucracy and medical confidentiality probably played a large role. Most people who in the Archdiocese who knew anything about Hullermann (remember, he was an outsider) probably only knew that Hullermann was “sick” and “receiving medical treatment.” All it takes is someone to miss a memo, transfer out, or retire without making the necessary knowledge transfer.

I mean, even in this modern age do you know how many people in your local area are registered sex-offenders? Out of them, do our resources tell us which ones are rapists and which ones drank too much at a frat party 20 years ago and got caught running naked down the road?
  1. Benedict’s subordinates knew it all, from what I’ve seen of the communications between Munich and Essen. Benedict was close to his subordinates. So how could Benedict NOT know not only about Hullermann staying in a rectory, but also of his abuse and his continued exposure to children?
Click to expand...
This wasn’t a parish priest communicating with a couple of secretaries and altar servers. This was a massive bureaucracy with a ton of paperwork and chains of command with individuals trusted to handle responsibilities. Sometimes the system fails. In fact, the larger the system the more likely things will slip through the cracks.
At the very least, my heart is burdened by this cancer with my Church.
Click to expand...
It’s truly a horrible thing, but try to take heart in the fact that while we can’t change what happened in the 60s and 70s we have learned from those horrors and taken steps to prevent them. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger helped lead the charge to those reforms that are in place now, and instances of molestation occurring in the last 20 decades are nearly unheard of. There will always been deviants, but we’re much better prepared now to catch them and hand them over to the authorities.
  • Marty Lund
 
I have seen the NY Times misrepresent situations so many times that I place little credit with their reporting. They have a definite bias and have their own agenda…Now speaking as someone whose husband gets hundreds of emails a day from people who work under him (they always copy him…even their conversations back and forth) he definitely does not read everything that he is sent. It is wrong to just assume he read the memo since he was copied on it, and then, create a whole story that he knew and hid that information. Like I said, the media thrives on trying to bring down the Catholic Church.
 
Okay, that prompts a question I have with all of this…how on earth is the mainstream media getting their hands on Church memos and other documents? :confused:
 
What gets me about this particular scandal is the complete lack of oversight of Hullerman’s psychiatric treatment–apparently by anyone, in Essen, Munich or anywhere else.

Hullerman returns to ‘priestly duties’* five days* after he starts his psychiatric treatment??

Who decided this? Where was Hullerman working–in Munich or elsewhere in Cardinal Ratzinger’s diocese? Fahr definitely knew what Hullerman’s ‘illness’ was–as his referral to having Hullerman teach in a ‘girls’ school’ attests–and if Fahr knew, then I am sure that his boss, Ratzinger knew—but who oversaw Hullerman?? Where was he working and what was he doing? How did he escape the notice of the Munich archbishop’s office if he was resuming his ‘priestly duties’ in the Munich archdiocese?
 
whatevergirl said:
Okay, that prompts a question I have with all of this…how on earth is the mainstream media getting their hands on Church memos and other documents? :confused:
Click to expand...
I don’t know about this particular situation, but in many instances it is records that have been provided under court order for lawsuits. In other cases, they may be documents and records that have been provided during government run investigations, such as in Ireland. In some U.S. dioceses, there are hundreds of civil cases, some resolved, some pending. Each of them may result in piles of documents provided to plaintiffs and their attorneys. It is not surprising to me that they will find their way to the media.
 
landgazr said:
At the very least, my heart is burdened by this cancer with my Church.
Click to expand...
Many, many others feel like you. It is a cancer that has been left to spread, and only radical surgery can excise it. Hopefully.
 
landgazr said:
Considering the willingness of everyone around him to fall on their swords, and the memos and meetings, what am I supposed to think?
Click to expand...
The claim from a Vatican spokesperson has been that a subordinate of Ratzinger had this priest transferred to another parish and that Ratzinger didn’t know about it. He took full responsibility according to the diocese. Now we have proof that a Memo was sent to Ratzinger informing him of the transfer. We’re expected to believe that Ratzinger never read it and didn’t know about it. They’re saying Ratzinger received an average of about two memos per day, and that he often didn’t read them himself. That’s what we’re expected to believe. And Vatican spokespersons are using their typical “mental reservation” type language. In their words, the idea that Ratzinger read it is “mere speculation”. That’s the language they’re using now rather than outright denying that he read it.

We’re also expected to believe that despite the fact that Ratzinger held a meeting about transferring this priest to his diocese for treatment, that he didn’t know what happened to the priest within days after that, and that his subordinate never consulted with him before transferring this priest to a new parish.

I’d like to believe this. I’m afraid I’m having a hard time doing so.
 
anode said:
What gets me about this particular scandal is the complete lack of oversight of Hullerman’s psychiatric treatment–apparently by anyone, in Essen, Munich or anywhere else.

Hullerman returns to ‘priestly duties’* five days* after he starts his psychiatric treatment??

Who decided this? Where was Hullerman working–in Munich or elsewhere in Cardinal Ratzinger’s diocese? Fahr definitely knew what Hullerman’s ‘illness’ was–as his referral to having Hullerman teach in a ‘girls’ school’ attests–and if Fahr knew, then I am sure that his boss, Ratzinger knew—but who oversaw Hullerman?? Where was he working and what was he doing? How did he escape the notice of the Munich archbishop’s office if he was resuming his ‘priestly duties’ in the Munich archdiocese?
Click to expand...
*Good questions. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever get to the full truth with all of this. It’s too confusing, too many documents, people have died since these allegations have come forth, etc…

And I think at this point, it’s one of those times, when something really really bad had to happen, to bring about reform. The kids of generations past had to suffer, so kids today, and going forward, won’t have to. Now we have protocols in place to ensure that these types of things are reported and DEALT WITH appropriately. I think we should see a rapid decline, if any, in abuse against children by clergy. Have to keep praying. God takes something bad, and turns it for our good. He can take this bad situation, these broken victims of abuse, and have their pain not be in vain. God is amazing that way. That is why I can still have great hope…because this is and always will be…Christ’s Church. *
 
I seem to recall in one of the approved apparitions of Mary she said that if we did not turn away from sin,the Chuch and the Pontiff would have much to suffer and that there would be persecution.
 
When the New York Times does a full-court press assault on the state of Israel’s ongoing neo-apartheid policies exerted on the long suffering, bedraggled Palestinians, then I will view anything which spews from its biased propaganda as being worthy of review. For example, if they were to ask Ben Netanyahu, " What is your idea for a “final solution” to the Palestinian question?" Then, to aggressively follow up, “Is it to gleefully watch them pushed into the sea and be drowned”. Then the question would be, “So, Mr. Netanyahu, what differentiates your nation from apartheid South Africa?” Or, dare we speak it …“Nazi Germany?” And before the accusations of Anti-semitism come flying in, are not the poor, hapless Palestinians Semitic? The New York Times is no Friend of Christ, let alone Christianity. Propagada has of its intent a bias…beware the New York Times.
 
unafraid said:
When the New York Times does a full-court press assault on the state of Israel’s ongoing neo-apartheid policies exerted on the long suffering, bedraggled Palestinians, then I will view anything which spews from its biased propaganda as being worthy of review. For example, if they were to ask Ben Netanyahu, " What is your idea for a “final solution” to the Palestinian question?" Then, to aggressively follow up, “Is it to gleefully watch them pushed into the sea and be drowned”. Then the question would be, “So, Mr. Netanyahu, what differentiates your nation from apartheid South Africa?” Or, dare we speak it …“Nazi Germany?” And before the accusations of Anti-semitism come flying in, are not the poor, hapless Palestinians Semitic? The New York Times is no Friend of Christ, let alone Christianity. Propagada has of its intent a bias…beware the New York Times.
Click to expand...
The New York timrs is known even in Canada to have a transparent agenda that burys Jewish misdeeds in tiny columns at the very back of the Newspaper.It is fit only for lining your budgies cage or being stacked in an outhouse and NOT as reading material.
 
Soutane said:
The New York timrs is known even in Canada to have a transparent agenda that burys Jewish misdeeds in tiny columns at the very back of the Newspaper.It is fit only for lining your budgies cage or being stacked in an outhouse and NOT as reading material.
Click to expand...
Your attitude is flagrantly anti-Semitic.

The New York Times reporting is very sympathetic to the Palestinians and hostile to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which many Jews in the US do not support.

The handling of the Hullerman case in Munich raises a lot of legitimate questions which the NYT did not raise, but which I did–where was the oversight?

The article on the deaf boys trying to stop Murphy involved interviews of the men themselves, and witnesses to the large meeting with Archbishop Cousins when he said that Murphy was indispensable, the suit, the final dismissal of Murphy and a paltry settlement. All of these are FACTS. The two year delay between Archbishop Weakland appealing to Ratzinger and the Cardinal’s delayed response is a fact.

Here’s the link to the second article, for those with more objective eyes:

nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top