Pope Emeritus Benedict - The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
His “Rottweiler” wasn’t interested in protecting the pontiff’s long term image?
 
I am defending Benedict against one false statement you made “Cardinal Ratzinger knew of every case of priestly sexual abuse that occurred while he was head of the CDF” and against one charge that is not justified based on the conditions of society at the time. And against the false claim that @Hoosier-Daddy made, which you supported, that he did nothing.

I am not saying the Church, Pope St John Paul II, or Pope Benedict XVI, or popes before them, or Pope Francis, have done everything they should have. I am not saying they are completely off the hook due to societal norms and problems at the time. But one cannot say that they should now be ignored because of what happened while they were in positions of authority. One has to take into account the environment which existed when they served.

And false statements are nothing short of calumny, if intentionally said and known to be false. He did not know every case and he did do something.
 
tafan2 said:
And false statements are nothing short of calumny, if intentionally said and known to be false. He did not know every case and he did do something.
Click to expand...
gracepoole said:
The 2006 film Deliver Us from Evil explores some of these. I also recommend you view Mea Maxima Culpa .

Until you’ve done so, kindly steer clear of accusing me of near slander.
Click to expand...
And calumny.
 
I never did accuse you of calmuny, my statement was well qualified (or are you saying you knew your statements against the former pope were false?).
Lets just be clear, as I do not have time to review those films right now:
Based on those films are you claiming that Benedict XVI new of every case of priestly sexual abuse as head of the CDF? Are you claiming he did nothing?
 
Last edited:
I’m claiming that once – at his request – all cases of priestly sexual abuse were transferred to his desk, he was not a “Rottweiler.” There is far more that he could have and should have done, including immediately notifying law enforcement.
 
That’s exactly what I said, he suggested to Pope John Paul II in 2001 that the cases go to the CDF, and the pope made that change. What that means is prior to that (for 16 years), he did not see every case. So your initial claim is false, that we agree on.

Yes, he could have done more, are you claiming he did nothing?
 
tafan2 said:
Yes, he could have done more, are you claiming he did nothing?
Click to expand...
Did I say that anywhere?

And let’s be clear: by saying “he could have done more,” he could have, for example, ensured that someone like Maciel was imprisoned, not honored.
 
gracepoole said:
Did I say that anywhere?
Click to expand...
No, as I stated earlier, that claim was made by @Hoosier-Daddy and your ‘like’ might have implied agreement. I have not claimed that you said that. I was simply asking if you agreed with it.
 
tafan2 said:
I think Francis likely requested he write it, knowing he could say things that Francis could not, knowing many Catholics would listen to Benedict and not himself.
Click to expand...
I don’t get this theory. Why couldn’t Francis say these things? The only reason would be if he didn’t believe them.
 
Of course he could have, but he would have been roundly condemned for some of the statements, just as we are seeing happen to Pope Benedict. Some of the statements he has alluded to in the past. We need to understand how we got here, Benedict gave a bried history of that. I think Francis would have been attacked from all sides for doing the same, both inside and outside the Church. I have, at this time, read the whole letter, I think it is very good and it is inline with Francis. I will note that yesterday I predicted a statement by the Vatican that there was no conflict between the two. This morning, the Vatican newspaper published an article stating just that.

I admit my theory about Francis actually requesting he write it is nothing more than pure speculation on my part. But I am positive that he would never have published it without the Holy Father’s complete approval.

When faced with a huge problem your trying to solve, you use all of the tools at your disposal.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
ETA
Click to expand...
gracepoole said:
Your interest in defending Benedict is laudable to a point, I suppose. Personally I’d rather not become complicit in his failures by defending him too vociferously. Laicization certainly was one response to the crisis. It was insufficient. These men needed to be prosecuted. And while local authorities may have balked at times at pushing for prosecution, Ratzinger’s call for it likely would have led to very different outcomes. The generalizations you’re offering about how law enforcement and families viewed the situation are, like many generalizations, unhelpful as they can be easily countered by many contrary examples. The 2006 film Deliver Us from Evil explores some of these. I also recommend you view Mea Maxima Culpa.

Until you’ve done so, kindly steer clear of accusing me of near slander.
Click to expand...
You were flat out wrong on some of your points and tafan2 pointed them out.

Also, you ahve to take into account the way things were back then. They just weren’t reported, rightly or wrongly.

It’s like blaming Moses for allowing divorce or King David for having concubines…was it right? No. But it was acceptable at the time.

It’s not always realistic to play the moral game in hindsight
 
tafan2 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
Did I say that anywhere?
Click to expand...
No, as I stated earlier, that claim was made by @Hoosier-Daddy and your ‘like’ might have implied agreement. I have not claimed that you said that. I was simply asking if you agreed with it.
Click to expand...
I was once part of a Catholic mom’s group on Facebook. And when I was kicked out of it, it was because I had “liked” someone’s else post. I was removed from the group for giving a thumb’s up. Frankly, watching who likes the posts of others is bizarre.
 
Oh, good grief, no I don’t have to “take into account the way things were back then.” There were plenty of people reporting, begging for help from the Church, which in turn moved guilty priests and failed to involve the police. As I said earlier, there were some who failed to disclose because they worshiped the Church’s hierarchy (note that this isn’t something Benedict acknowledges in his letter). But for heaven’s sake let’s not assume everyone affected by priestly sexual abuse felt this way. They didn’t. And the historical record proves this.
 
“What he is telling us…We are facing the ultimate breakdown not only within the Church but also in our public life. And there is only one answer here…to return to the ultimate reality who is God himself.” ~ Robert Royal
 
gracepoole said:
Oh, good grief, no I don’t have to “take into account the way things were back then.” There were plenty of people reporting, begging for help from the Church, which in turn moved guilty priests and failed to involve the police. As I said earlier, there were some who failed to disclose because they worshiped the Church’s hierarchy (note that this isn’t something Benedict acknowledges in his letter). But for heaven’s sake let’s not assume everyone affected by priestly sexual abuse felt this way. They didn’t. And the historical record proves this.
Click to expand...
Well you didn’t really address my point.
It wasn’t just the church that wasn’t handing abuse cases to authorities. It was society. and the authorities themselves.

Does that make it right? No. But it gives context and why your criticism for Bxvi is a little misplaced.
 
Lets take a step back. You very politely asked for an explanation of what I meant saying you did not want to argue, then I explained it, then you are very defensive about it. I feel that your original request to elaborate was baited, but that is beside the point. There was a bit of hyperbole that you seized upon when I said he did nothing. But I’ll stand by the statement. While he may have done an inadequate job in regards to abuse, the essential result was as if nothing was done. This is evidenced by the subsequent scandals now brewing. And we know from Vigano and Mccarrick and Pennsylvanian and Chile, and Germany and Ireland and Pell, and well, just keep on going that these were widespread. And subsequently widely known. Benedict admits such when he discusses the German seminaries and the homosexual “lobby”/“mafia” he has previously mentioned.

Let me be perfectly clear about a couple of things so you don’t throw around calumny or slander.
  1. Benedict XVI in my opinion is the greatest theologian we have had in hundreds perhaps a thousand years. Should the Church be permitted to remain on earth, he should and will be a doctor of the Church.
  2. He is right in his assessment of the abuse if the letter is authentic.
  3. I love BXVI so much that I named my first son after him. Benedict is an odd name to commit to as an american so you must know I adore the man.
  4. I have extensively read and followed his works and those of his brother. His career from Vatican II onward is brilliant and like I said before his theology is spot on and absolutely Holy.
  5. In full disclosure I am not a fan of Pope Francis. I love the Pope. I have pilgrimaged to see him. I pray for HH every day but Pope Benedict is to my personal liking and I really believe there is a rift in theology and direction and politics between the two. This is not a seamless transition and that is made harder by a living Emeritus Pope. I also think in all honesty that Pope Francis is a good man and would be the first to tell you he is not a theologian. (I think he has said this before)
cont.
 
Now, to the heart of the matter. I believe that as great as Benedict was and is, as great as Francis is, and as Great (saintly) as JPII was, that each man has his weakness. We could discuss each. But the focus here is BXVI. And historically his weakness is well…weakness. His brother did an excellent job of outlining the formative years in Nazi Germany and the Ratzinger family politics and feelings at the time of WWII. From his brother being wounded by the Americans, to Benedict guarding a BMW airplane engine factory for the Germans. They viewed Hitler as a clown, someone to be laughed at and then when he was in power they did the thing that most people would do and that is serve thier country.
FF to the Papacy. I think it was obvious he did not ask to be Pope (few do) and it really took a toll on him. and then to the current abuse crisis. This is the problem, the criticism I have. When this man, this incredibly Holy and wise man was put into the position of being arguably the most powerful man in the world… He stepped down. So what he did before that, any steps he took to combat or bring to light the abuse was wiped clean. Francis has McCormick at his doorstep. But there was knowledge before that.

We can continue to discuss the point but I think you were overreacting to hyperbole and attacking Gracepoole for simply “liking” a post was way out of line.
I respect Gracepoole and have for some time. But she and I will be the first to tell you we RARELY agree on theological matters. She is a wonderful poster whom I respect but usually respectfully disagree with. That she was singled out for a like of my post was something that was not right. And she deserves an apology.

As for me, I do not need an apology because you and I probably agree on much. But I think you overreacted to a blanket statement (he did nothing) which is obviously not really true. But the subtext is that what he did or didn’t do was negated by his abdication. Followed by this letter, I am so confused. This letter was written as a leader, a Pope and probably is word for word what Pope Francis should have said a couple of months ago when he came out with an 8 point plan to combat abuse which really lacked substance. I am wholeheartedly confused by this letter and it’s purpose.
 
CatholicSooner said:
Well you didn’t really address my point.
It wasn’t just the church that wasn’t handing abuse cases to authorities. It was society. and the authorities themselves.

Does that make it right? No. But it gives context and why your criticism for Bxvi is a little misplaced.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. The Holy Father, like all priests, is responsible for the salvation of souls. There’s no need to point out that sexual abuse happens in the secular world unless we’re attempting to minimize the evil that abusive priests perpetrated.

Additionally, we’re talking about post-2001. Do you really believe that in the past 20 years people (including authorities) have largely desired not to prosecute those responsible for sexual abuse against minors?
 
The former Pope has done a great service for the church with the statement. He is spot on. It is not just clericalism. What is needed is a radical turning to God in love. The church is being purified. She will perhaps emerge smaller, but triumphant over the confusion, complacently, and lukewarmness which has its origins from the evil one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top