Pope Benedict Transferred Paedophile? [Jimmy Akin @ NCReg]

[lemonbeam]

lynx

You’re right about hindsight. Humans are very good at learning and adapting from past mistakes. Laws are also a lot like this. Once society has recognized a non desirable trait, legislation and judicial action is enacted and laws are created to benefit society. From what i’ve been reading, I can find it plausible that Ratzinger knew he was breaking the law in sheltering a troubled sex offender. This is tough to forgive, especially when Murphy’s crimes run deep.

Again, on Ratzinger, I hope after reading the above text, it makes it more clear for you. There is no evidence that Ratzinger covered up a known sex abuser.

Opinions, we’re all entitled right

Not the case, but perhaps my wording is wrong. I was trying to say that no group should complain that another group is not being blamed for an action. This implies that you can complain about being in the media. For instance, if you feel that your group is being marginalized then you have every right to complain about how the information is portrayed. This also implies that you can complain about child abuse in other groups, just not how it is portrayed disproportionately to your group. Then again, these are just my opinions.

I have no problem with objective news reporting. I have a problem with what I’ve seen from the New York times and others, just Anti-Catholic sentiment, stating suspicion as fact, misleading gossip rag type headlines, and not reporting all the evidence. That, I have a problem with.

 

[lemonbeam]

lynx

To add from this article:

*It is also worth noting that, while the Vatican has accepted the Irish government’s Murphy Report on abuse, the Church, by the Pope’s explicit command, intends to go even farther in investigating these patterns of gross misbehavior, in order to identify their causes and root them out. This is appropriate in itself; it may create some barriers against the likelihood that aggressive secularists will seize on this scandal to try to bring the Catholic Church in Ireland under the virtual control of the state — by, for example, having its seminaries supervised by the government (as was proposed in Massachusetts in 2002 by politicians playing to the mob).

While the Irish crisis is unprecedented in its scope and in the depth of corruption it revealed, it is clear from his letter that Benedict XVI is laying down markers for the Catholic Church throughout the world — further confirmation that this pope takes the moral crimes of sexual and physical abuse, and the failures in governance of the Church’s bishops in dealing with those moral crimes, with utter seriousness. The Pope is quite aware of two facts of the global crisis: that it is far worse in other parts of society than it is in the Catholic Church today, and that the Catholic Church must nonetheless hold itself to a higher standard than others. Indeed, as one of the bright spots in this dark picture, Benedict’s letter notes that the Church’s efforts to come to grips with these problems within the household of faith — which have been more far-reaching than in any other institution or sector of society — have led others to look to the Catholic Church for guidance on how to address what is, in fact, a global plague.*

article.nationalreview.com/428810/the-end-of-euphemism/george-weigel?page=2

 

[lynx]

But this particular instance shows the failure of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and of the local civil authorities; it does not indicate what the enemies of the Church are determined to find–some evidence that the Catholic Church at the highest levels winks at child abuse and covers it up as some sort of institutional policy, or that the pope himself cares nothing for abused children.

Compelling posts. It’s very convenient to view the time line as presented. Assuming all information is correct, which on its face it appears to be, certainly this shows the failure of the system, church and state, and not the Pope himself. Hopefully, any further probing will stop then and there with the Archdiocese.

 

[JReducation]

I have not read every post, but many of them. I also read the readers’ comments on the Atkins article. What is being repeated or suggested is that then Archbishop Cardinal Ratzinger committed a crime.

However, the article and others that people have linke on here, all admit that the priest was not from the Munich Archdiocese and that the requesting bishoop simply said that the priest needed therapy for sexual improprieties.

I find this believeable and I’ll explain why, but don’t go beating me up. If a priest admits to his bishop that he has committed pedophilia and the bishop really believes that there is some kind of miracle therapy, as was suggested by many schools of psychology at that time, it is very plausible that the bishop may have decided to take advantage of the opportunity to send the man for theraphy. Did the bishop violate civil law? I don’t live in Germany. So I can’t say exactly what German law required at that time.

Did the Archbishop of Munich do something wrong? I does not look like it. Again, I’ll explain why. No bishop has the obligation to tell another bishop the sins of his priests. This is information that he shares with the Vatican and if it’s a civil offense, with the authorities. For the bishop to refer to it as a sexual impropriety sounds right. We can argue until the cows come home that the bishop should have told Ratzinger that he was sending him a priest involved in pedophilia. Bu tthe fact is that he does not have to reveal information to a bishop of another diocese. The bishop of the other diocese, in this case Cardinal Ratzinger, would be indescrete to ask for details. Since he is the host, he can say yes or not to having this guest in his deiocese, but asking indescrete questions would not have been the case back then.

Today, we no longer consider these questions indescrete. But we have to put ourselves back in those days. In those days asking someone to tell you what kind of sexual improprieties was considered indiscrete. You simply said yes or not to the request.

If this is what happened, then Ratzinger did not do anything wrong, because the term “sexual indiscretion” does not mean that there is something illegal happening. An affair is a sexual indiscretion. That term covers a multitude of sexual sins.

Hindsight is 20/20. Today we say that the communication between the two bishops should have been more explicit, that the bishop of the home diocese should have reported the problem to the authorities, that sending the man for psychotherapy was futile. But that’s because we’re looking at it from hindsight.

I believe that the local bishop should have complied with the law, whatever that was at that time. That was a tragic mistake. He should have told Cardinal Ratzinger a little more about the problem, even though he does not have to reveal what has been shared with him confidentially. But in this situation he could have applied the “need to know” rule. This is where I believe that he made the mistake that got Ratzinger involved. My guess is that he diid not think that Ratzinger, then Archbishop of Munich, had a need to know.

As far as allowing the priest to help out in a parish. The Vicar General does not say that he assigned the priest to a parish. He allowed him to help out. Therefore, it is very plausible that the Archbishop would not be informed. Even today, assignments are made to parishes by either the Vicar General or in very large metropolitan dioceses they are made by the Director of Personell. The list is sent to the bishop for approval. But if it’s not an assignment, then it does not appear on the list. It would make sense that it was not an assignment, because the priest did not belong to the Archdiocese of Munich. Therefore, he cannot be assigned there. He cna help out, but he is a guests in that diocese, unless he applies to incardination. It is believable that the Vicar General let him work at a parish not as an associate, but as a guest who is helping out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

The case should have continued as an investigation. Murphy was dead, true, and couldn’t defend himself, but many of his victims were still alive, including probably some of those he solicited in confession. No one knows how many Murphy abused, because no one bothered to find out. I suspect no one wanted to find out, but we’ll never know. It was the duty of the church to continue with the investigation, to determine who did what to how many, to at least try to find out. No one seemed very eager to do this. At this time, the church preached and bullied those selfsame boys, that masturbation was a mortal sin–it still does–that girls who engaged in heavy petting were committing *mortal sins, *etc., but no, the old man is dead, we *technically * can’t pursue the case, so let’s drop the investigation.

Now the Vatican is hiding behind Canon Law and hair-splitting.

Here are a couple of words that may be new to some:

casuistry:
* argumentation that is specious or excessively subtle and intended to be misleading.

disingenuous:
not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness.

 

[JReducation]

The case should have continued as an investigation. Murphy was dead, true, and couldn’t defend himself, but many of his victims were still alive, including probably some of those he solicited in confession. No one knows how many Murphy abused, because no one bothered to find out. I suspect no one wanted to find out, but we’ll never know. It was the duty of the church to continue with the investigation, to determine who did what to how many, to at least try to find out. No one seemed very eager to do this. At this time, the church preached and bullied those selfsame boys, that masturbation was a mortal sin–it still does–that girls who engaged in heavy petting were committing *mortal sins, *etc., but no, the old man is dead, we *technically * can’t pursue the case, so let’s drop the investigation.

Now the Vatican is hiding behind Canon Law and hair-splitting.

Here are a couple of words that may be new to some:

casuistry:
* argumentation that is specious or excessively subtle and intended to be misleading.

disingenuous:

   not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness.

First of all, the article in the OP is not about Fr. Murphy. It’s about the Pope’s knowledge and involvement while he was Archbishop of Munich.

Second, I’m going to respectfully disagree that the Vatican is trying to be misleading or dsingenuous. These are human beings and like every human being, when these things happen, you’re never going to be able to say or do enough, because you’re limited. You do the best you can.

Third, I don’t see any evidence that the Church is hiding behind canon law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lmray61]

Sadly, I think we are all in denial that our our Pope had no idea. We all know something is definately not right here! It is almost too much to for me to bear. I cannot imagine the pain of the victims. How do families, especially of the victims, go back into their church and turn their head and continue to follow our Pope? This is really, really bad news for my heart!

 

[whatevergirl]

*That case was handled so poorly, lemonbeam (thank you for the details of it all too) I can’t even believe it. It would seem that the Pope shouldn’t be involved, and it should be ‘‘easy’’ to clear his name over time to being linked to any culpability for the transferrence of this priest. The timeline doesn’t seem to fit. So, happy to hear that. But, JREducation, while what you say I agree with, on the fact that pedophilia was a relatively mysterious illness back then, it goes without saying that a Bishop who had any knowledge of kids being raped or molested by priests, shouldn’t have taken action towards getting these priests as far away from harming other kids as possible. These were crimes …against kids.
Seeking therapy for the harm they caused to kids, is not justice. These priests should have had trials, and if found guilty, should have been let go. Not transferred, completely let go.

Saying that because back in the 50’s, we didn’t know that much about the extent to which pedophilia can’t be cured, is to me? Not a valid reason for why SO MANY priests (in the scheme of things) were moved around to other parishes to CONTINUE hurting other kids…

I know what you’re saying JR, but it’s not an excuse to me. It’s the excuse that’s being utilized a lot, but the reality is that these priests should never had been priests to begin with…they most likely, entered the seminary, already mentally ill. (and hid it) That is what Pope Benedict should be stating…that celibacy didn’t cause this, but that the grave error the Church made back in the day, was that there were not stringent enough protocol and tests in place to judge the mental competency of men wishing to become priests. That to me, is where the focus needs to lie. And that is something that makes more sense.

The whole thing is so sad to me, but I know this isn’t about the Church Herself, it’s about some very weak and depraved humans, who had no business being priests. And perhaps, the spotlight is so bright on this now, that we (the collective Church) will be much wiser and pickier in who we select to become part of the clergy. *

 

[whatevergirl]

Sadly, I think we are all in denial that our our Pope had no idea. We all know something is definately not right here! It is almost too much to for me to bear. I cannot imagine the pain of the victims. How do families, especially of the victims, go back into their church and turn their head and continue to follow our Pope? This is really, really bad news for my heart!

*I know, I know! :console: I cried this afternoon about all of this. I know that we are a human Church…and we’re all sinners. But these cases, one after the next…finding out nothing was done…and more kids abused…it is hard to process it all. I just pray for our Pope…and our Church. *

 

[gospelofmark]

it’s amazing that you’re not getting the point
the fact that people that pedo’s could be rehabbed is not the issue. that’s why I brought up murder. murderers can be rehabbed, does that mean if you catch wind of someone committing murder that you send them for rehab instead of sending for a detective?! that’s the point! the point is that these folks should have been brought to justice! and please don’t tell me that those in power did not know about this and the hundreds of other cases we don’t have knowledge of. any attempt to justify this action (inaction a better word) just further proves the curruption

As you have been judging you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

 

[whatevergirl]

As you have been judging you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

*We have a right to a safe society, and if someone is hurting children, to do nothing is worse, than removing them, trust me. Jesus expects us to watch out for and DEFEND the innocent…those that have no voice. *

 

[JReducation]

*That case was handled so poorly, lemonbeam (thank you for the details of it all too) I can’t even believe it. It would seem that the Pope shouldn’t be involved, and it should be ‘‘easy’’ to clear his name over time to being linked to any culpability for the transferrence of this priest. The timeline doesn’t seem to fit. So, happy to hear that. But, JREducation, while what you say I agree with, on the fact that pedophilia was a relatively mysterious illness back then, it goes without saying that a Bishop who had any knowledge of kids being raped or molested by priests, shouldn’t have taken action towards getting these priests as far away from harming other kids as possible. These were crimes …against kids.
Seeking therapy for the harm they caused to kids, is not justice. These priests should have had trials, and if found guilty, should have been let go. Not transferred, completely let go.

Saying that because back in the 50’s, we didn’t know that much about the extent to which pedophilia can’t be cured, is to me? Not a valid reason for why SO MANY priests (in the scheme of things) were moved around to other parishes to CONTINUE hurting other kids…

I know what you’re saying JR, but it’s not an excuse to me. It’s the excuse that’s being utilized a lot, but the reality is that these priests should never had been priests to begin with…they most likely, entered the seminary, already mentally ill. (and hid it) That is what Pope Benedict should be stating…that celibacy didn’t cause this, but that the grave error the Church made back in the day, was that there were not stringent enough protocol and tests in place to judge the mental competency of men wishing to become priests. That to me, is where the focus needs to lie. And that is something that makes more sense.

The whole thing is so sad to me, but I know this isn’t about the Church Herself, it’s about some very weak and depraved humans, who had no business being priests. And perhaps, the spotlight is so bright on this now, that we (the collective Church) will be much wiser and pickier in who we select to become part of the clergy. *

I get the impression that you did not understand my post. I have never said that the way these situations were handled was right. I was speaking about the knowledge and involvement of Cardinal Ratzinger. Read my post again and you’ll see what I’m saying. My post is about him, because that’s what the thread title is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[whatevergirl]

*Your impression was right…lol Ok, I see that…sorry there, JR. *

 

[JReducation]

*Your impression was right…lol Ok, I see that…sorry there, JR. *

Hey, no big deal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[whatevergirl]

Hey, no big deal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I might need a break from this section, my reading of posts is starting to overlap.

 

[gospelofmark]

*We have a right to a safe society, and if someone is hurting children, to do nothing is worse, than removing them, trust me. Jesus expects us to watch out for and DEFEND the innocent…those that have no voice. *

Each one of us will get our reward or punishment according to our deeds.

 

[whatevergirl]

Each one of us will get our reward or punishment according to our deeds.

*It’s interesting you say this, because I was thinking the other day about confession. Sorry to the OP if this is slightly off tangent, but…when we confess, the slate is wiped clean. Jesus forgives us, we must do our penance, and strive to sin no more. Would we still have to suffer for sins confessed? My point being, that if these priests confessed…if they truly were trying to live a better holier life, and let’s say they didn’t hurt children after say a final confession before their death…would they still be held accountable for sins they confessed and repented from? Sorry to bog you down with this question! But it just makes me wonder. *

 

[JReducation]

*It’s interesting you say this, because I was thinking the other day about confession. Sorry to the OP if this is slightly off tangent, but…when we confess, the slate is wiped clean. Jesus forgives us, we must do our penance, and strive to sin no more. Would we still have to suffer for sins confessed? My point being, that if these priests confessed…if they truly were trying to live a better holier life, and let’s say they didn’t hurt children after say a final confession before their death…would they still be held accountable for sins they confessed and repented from? Sorry to bog you down with this question! But it just makes me wonder. *

That is a wonderful question. First of all, a priest has the obligation to hear the confessions of these priests who have sinned against minors. If they express contrition, they must be absolved and allowed to receive the Eucharist. There is a law about restitution. But I won’t comment on that, because I’m not sure if it applies when there is danger that the penitent will be arrested. It may apply. I just don’t know, so I won’t comment. I’m a Mystical Theologian, not a Moral Theologian. All I had was three years of moral theology. That does not make me a moral theologian.

If such a priest dies in a state of grace, he goes to purgatory like most sinners and from there to heaven.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[gospelofmark]

*It’s interesting you say this, because I was thinking the other day about confession. Sorry to the OP if this is slightly off tangent, but…when we confess, the slate is wiped clean. Jesus forgives us, we must do our penance, and strive to sin no more. Would we still have to suffer for sins confessed? My point being, that if these priests confessed…if they truly were trying to live a better holier life, and let’s say they didn’t hurt children after say a final confession before their death…would they still be held accountable for sins they confessed and repented from? Sorry to bog you down with this question! But it just makes me wonder. *

We reep what we sow, in this life, like king David, or in purgatory. Only God knows the true state of the soul.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m so glad I asked this question, JR and mark…That seemed to answer it for me. Thank you. I ask in a general sense, too…not just in relation to all of this. I’ve always been curious of that, a bit.